RAM PRAKASH SHARMA S/O.LATE SHEO KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND RAGINI SHARMA W/O.SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA D/O.MAHESH PRASAD THAKUR (POLICE INSPECTOR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for quashing is directed against order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East) in connection with Kazi Mohamadpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2002 registered under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the petition of the petitioners dated 22.4.2006 in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind.

(2.) It appears that on the basis of a handwritten report submitted by one Ragini Sharma, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, the aforesaid police case was registered against 9 FIR named accused under Sections 384, 316, 498A/34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on the statement that the complainant had been married to one Sanjeev Kumar Sharma on 1.12.2000 whereat considerable ornaments and other gifts were given. It was alleged that on 5.12.2000 her husband and the in -laws started making a demand for presentation of a Maruti Car and one katha land by way of dowry and the dowry demand was conveyed by her to her parents. It is also alleged that the husband and in -laws had also threatened to file a divorce case if the demand was not fulfilled. It is said that her father having managed to gather a sum of Rs. 2 lacs handed it over to her father - in - law for purchase of a Maruti Car and also expressed his inability to fulfill the remaining demand. Annoyed thereby she was tortured and subjected to cruelty in various ways and she having contacted her brother over telephone, the brother came and took her back to the parental home. However, a few days thereafter her husband came over and took her back to the matrimonial home where she soon became pregnant. This situation was not palatable to the in - laws who forcibly made her consume medicine in order to terminate the pregnancy by means of mis - carriage. She was again taken back to her parental home for proper treatment and recovery. Later on she was taken by her father and brother to the matrimonial home where the in - laws left the house locking all rooms leaving one room open for her living. They allegedly also extended threats of dire consequences if the demands were not met. It has also been alleged that her husband, being a lawyer, was making all efforts to secure a divorce.

(3.) IT appears that after due investigation and supervision of superior police officers including the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Police, the police submitted a final form in respect of these five petitioners whereas a chargesheet was submitted against the remaining four persons figuring as accused under Section 498A/34 IPC only. It further appears that after the submission of the charge sheet two petitions were filed on behalf of the informant under the signature of a counsel not conferred with power praying therein to take cognizance against these five petitioners also and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of unauthorized petition also took cognizance against these five petitioners under Section 498A/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and they were also summoned to face the trial. It further appears that against the order issuing summons Cr. Misc. No. 28572 of 2004 was filed before this Court by all the 9 FIR named accused and this Court while dismissing the case by order dated 10.5.2004 without going into the merit of the case gave liberty to the petitioners to raise all these issues at the appropriate time of hearing on charge.