NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order dated 20.04.2011 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad after enquiry of C.P. Case No. 533 of 2011 found a prima facie case under Sections 498A/313/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them.

(2.) The complainant-opposite party No. 2- Rabindra Kumar Lala presented the Complaint Petition No. 533 of 2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad narrating that his daughter Neha Lala was married to the Petitioner Romit Kumar on 20.01.2011 according to the Hindu rites and rituals at Dhanbad and at that time it was apprised to him that the groom was engineer in Electronics and Electrical Engineering and had also completed M.B.A. from Pune. On the eve of marriage sufficient amount of cash and jewelleries were given to the groom side. After marriage, his daughter went to her matrimonial home at Ranchi. In the reception party which was held on 02.02.2011 the accused persons demanded Maruti SX4 Car and conveyed that they would visit Dhanbad on 12.01.2011 for collecting the amount of dowry which was due to him. On 11.02.2011, the bride Neha Lala came to Dhanbad to appear in the GATE examination where she explained to her parents that her entire ornaments and other valuables were retained by her motherinlaw i.e. Petitioner No. 3 The Petitioners visited Dhanbad on 12.02.2011 as per shedule and demanded Rs. 50,000/alleged to be due to the complainant and further reiterated their demand of Maruti SX4. During stay at her matrimonial home Neha Lala became pregnant whereupon accused No. 3 i.e. motherinlaw threatened that Neha Lala would not be allowed to continue her pregnancy unless the dowry that has demanded would be fulfilled. She suffered mental and physical torture in various ways at the hands of the accused Petitioners. She developed pain in her uterus in the month of March but she was left uncared. Some sort of medicine was administered by her motherinlaw, as a result of which her pain aggravated. The Petitioners then brought her to Dhanbad but taking into consideration the serious condition, the complainant took her back to Ranchi at her matrimonial home for that the complainantfather of Neha Lala was scolded and their held exchange of wrods. In the same sequences, Neha was dragged and badly assaulted by the accused persons. She was then brought to Dhanbad where she developed severe bleeding and her condition deteriorated. She was removed to Jalan Memorial Hospital where she was advised for complete abortion for her survival and accordingly evacuation was effected at the advise of doctor.

(3.) The complainant-opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed counteraffidavit During course of argument on behalf of the parties, the Court proposed and asked as to whether there was chance of compromise between the parties in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the father of the bride Neha had instituted the instant case but a separate suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the husbandPetitioner under Setion 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.