RAKESH TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the complainant - opposite party no. 2 as also learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dared 14/3/2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1824/2013 (Trial No. 3381/2014) by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi by which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec. 498A IPC read with Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that this petitioner is Bahnoi (husband of the younger sister of the husband of the complainant - opposite party no. 2). According to the learned counsel, a bare perusal of the complaint petition giving rise to Complaint Case No. 1824/2013 would show that so far as the present petitioner is concerned there is no specific allegation of committing any act of cruelty or torture against the complainant - opposite party no. 2. The whole allegation is about participation of this petitioner at the time of negotiation of the marriage where it is alleged that this petitioner had accompanied Vijay Kumar Pandey (husband) on 25/12/2011 to the house of the complainant for purpose of meeting her in connection with marriage. Learned counsel submits that in the complaint petition itself it is stated that for purpose of expenses in the marriage the father of the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 in the A/C of this petitioner. Submission is that once marriage was solemnized on 18/4/2012 thereafter there is no allegation of commission of any act or omission by this petitioner which may constitute an offence either under Sec. 498A or Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.