SATYA BRAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) is directed against the order dated 17.6.1998 of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad passed in C.P. Case No. 23/97 declining to discharge the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of sub - section (1) of Section 245 of the Code.

(2.) THE short fact of the case, as made out in the petition of complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Reebha Singh is that she was married to one Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, (accused No. 1 in the petition of complaint) who is the son of petitioners, in the month of May, 1982 and at the time of marriage, cash, ornaments and utensils worth Rs. 1.75 lakhs had been given by her parents to the accused persons and entrusted to these petitioners. After marriage the couple were living happily. However, when the marriage of a daughter of the petitioners was to be performed in May. 1983, these petitioners and their son Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh asked her father to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to them to meet the expenses of the said daughter of the petitioners. On that occasion, these petitioners also gave the entire ornaments belonging to the complainant to their daughter inspite of protest by opposite party No. 2. At a later stage, the son of the petitioner and husband of the complainant obtained a job in the railway hospital at Dhanbad and the couple along with two children born out of their wedlock started living there since January, 1992. In course of their sojourn at Dhanbad, the husband of the complainant, namely, the son of the petitioners started subjecting opposite party No. 2 with various types of cruelty. At times, he used to come to residence in a drunken state and abuse and assault her. He also picked up some acquaintance with another girl and started bringing her to his quarter to the utter dislike of the complainant. Lastly, in 1996, the husband of the complainant instituted a divorce suit in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhanbad for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that his wife, the complainant, was suffering from psychzophrenia even prior to their marriage. He even charged her with adultery. From Dhanbad he was transferred to Jhajha. He went there leaving the complainant and two minor children at Dhanbad and he neglected them. As all attempts on the part of the complainant to bring about some sort of settlement and reconciliation between the parties failed, she filed the complaint petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 17.1.1997 charging these petitioners and her husband with commission of offences under Sections 498 -A and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate declining to discharge the accused persons and showing his intention to frame charges under Sections 498 -A and 406 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons, the husband of the complainant namely, accused No. 1 in the complaint petition, has not come to this Court. However, his parents who are the petitioners, have seriously challenged the sustainability of the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on going through the petition of complaint and the statements of two witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant under Section 244 of the Code, one does not notice even a whisper of any cruelty or torture at the hands of these petitioners. Therefore, according to him, no offence under Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Code is shown to have been committed by these petitioners. On going through the petition of complaint, I find that only allegation against these petitioners is that at the time of the marriage of their daughter in May, '83, they had pressurised the father of the complainant to pay to them a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. No allegation of commission of offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act has been made out. Indeed, no prosecution under the said Act is permitted is absence of sanction by the State Government. According to the allegations made in the complaint petition, torture or cruelty to the complainant started in 1992 and that too, at the hands of her husband when they came to reside at Dhanbad. Incidentally, these petitioners reside at their village home in the district of Khagaris. There is no whisper anywhere that they ever visited Dhanbad after 1992 and before filing of the complaint. In course of her evidence, complainant PW 2 and her elder daughter PW 1 have also not whispered anything against the petitioners in the matter of subjecting her with cruelty either for dowry of for any 'other reason. Therefore, it is manifest that the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant does not make out commission of offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code by these petitioners.