PHULDEO THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

(2.) The present application has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C. '), seeking quashing of the order dtd. 6/8/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order ') passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Magistrate ') in connection with Trial No.2887 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein (in-laws of O.P. No.2) alongwith the husband of O.P. No.2.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant (O.P. No.2) was solemnized with co-accused Kripa Shankar Thakur (son of petitioners) on 25/11/2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of O.P. No.2 gave sufficient cash, gift and articles. It is further alleged that after the marriage, O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial home and initially lived peacefully for a while, but subsequently, she was allegedly subjected to mental and physical torture by the accused persons (husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sister-in-laws of O.P. No,2) for fulfilment of an additional dowry demand of Rs.5.00lakhs, a Maruti Swift Dzire car and 100 grams of gold. During the wedlock, O.P. No.2 and the co-accused Kripa Shankar Thakur were blessed with a son. It is further alleged that the accused persons threw hot rice-water upon the O.P. No.2 while she was preparing meal and, thereafter, on 27/10/2017, the accused persons retained her belongings and ousted her from the matrimonial home. O.P. No.2, thereafter, started residing at her parental home. It is further alleged that despite intervention by her father and his request to the accused persons to take her back to her matrimonial home, they refused to do so on account of non-fulfilment of the alleged dowry demand. The husband of the O.P. No.2 is employed in a private job at Haridwar. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant (O.P. No.2) instituted Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.