NAGENDRA SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2. These applications have been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2246 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the accused persons, who are the petitioners in both the cases.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the complaint case, is that the complainant's second daughter Poonam Kumari was married with Nagendra Singh, according to Hindu rites and customs at Varanasi. Expenses of the marriage was borne by the complainant. On the very next day of marriage, the husband started demanding Alto car as well as cash of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. From the next day, all the accused persons, who are the petitioners herein, started demanding Rs. 1,00,000/ - as well as Alto car. The complainant's daughter was being subjected to abuses and were insisted upon to make telephone calls to her father for demanding Rs. 1,00,000/ - and Alto car. On being informed, the complainant along with his relatives went to the house of the accused persons so many times in order to solve the problem of his daughter, but it never proved to be fruitful. On account of Poonam Kumari being inflicted with mental and physical torture, the complainant was compelled to bring his daughter back to Ranchi from Varanasi on 10th August, 2008. Further it has been alleged that the accused persons by making telephone call, to the complainant, made it clear that they will never come Ranchi for taking Bidai of the complainant's daughter unless the demand of dowry i.e. Alto Car & Rs. 1,00,000/ - is fulfilled.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no cause of action ever accrued at Ranchi where the case has been lodged and still, the court has taken cognizance of the offence, which is quite illegal, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan [ : (2008) 11 SCC 103 (SC)] : (AIR 2008 SC 2666) and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police [ : (2004) 8 SCC 100] : (AIR 2004 SC 4286).