(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as also learned APP for the State.
(2.) Petitioner, in the present case, is younger brother of the husband of the informant-opposite party no.2, who is seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons passed in GR 5623 of 2012/Tr. 2322 of 2012, arising out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 379 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons against the accused persons including the present petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012 which was lodged on 11.11.2012 by improving upon the allegations which the informant had earlier made while lodging Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.10 of 2010 on 01.02.2010 which was registered under Sections 498A, 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is pointed out by reading the fardebyan of the informant-opposite party no.2 in the said case which is Annexure-2 to the present application that on earlier occasion there is not even whisper of allegation against the petitioner who is only younger brother of the husband of the informant-opposite party no.2. It is submitted that the marriage is of the year 2007 and the allegations in the FIR dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure-2) was that immediately after sometime of marriage the husband and in-laws of the informant-opposite party no.2 were demanding dowry and because of non-fulfilment of demand the accused in said case were committing certain act of torture against the informant-opposite party no.2. The allegations have only been made against the husband and in-laws in Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.10 of 2010, but while making same allegations at this stage in Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012 the informant has added the name of this petitioner also and the allegations have been made that husband, devar (petitioner) and inlaws were involved in demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle etc. as dowry. Learned counsel submits that on the face of it, the allegations are false and baseless and it is a case of mala fide prosecution of the petitioner as even on perusal of the FIR as contained in Annexure-1 it would appear that the allegations involving this petitioner saying that husband, Devar and in-laws all together beaten up the informant and fractured her one finger about three months back are vague and omnibus. The allegations are ornamental in nature and thurst of the allegations is against the husband and in-laws as it is alleged that they refused to take the informant to her sasural residence/home. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is separate in mess and business and he has no concern with the informant-opposite party no.2.