SUJEET NISHAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 11.2.2005 passed in CP Case No. 1495 of 2004 for offences under Sections 498 -A, IPC read with Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and also for quashing the entire proceedings in respect of the above mentioned case.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, is that Manisha Devi, opposite party No. 3/ complainant, had filed a complaint before the CJM, Dhanbad which was registered as CP No. 1495 of 2004. The petitioner No. 1 happens to be the husband of the opposite party No. 3 whereas petitioner No. 2 happens to be a niece of the petitioner No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that her marriage with the petitioner No, 1 was solemnized on 21.5.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000.00 was given besides gold ornaments, utensils and clothes was given by her parents at the time of marriage. After marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial house, but soon thereafter a demand of rupees forty thousand was made by the husband and other family members by way of further demand for dowry. The demand not being fulfilled, the petitioners inflicted ill treatment torture and neglect at the hands of the husband and inlaws. The complainant informed her parents narrating her woes. Her parents visited her matrimonial house to plead with the co -accused, but instead, they insisted on payment of the sum demanded for the purpose of development of their business. It is further alleged the husband of the complainant i.e. petitioner No. 1 had developed extra marital relationship with accused No. 5 namely petitioner No. 2 and they were also found in objectionable condition by the complainant and when objected to, the accused persons had inflicted further physical tortures on her.

(3.) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned order contending that the same is an order taking cognizance and has been passed without application of Judicial mind and without considering the fact that the allegations are wild, vague and totally unbelievable. Cognizance of offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been assailed on the ground that no previous sanction for prosecution was obtained and therefore the cognizance of the aforesaid offence was bad in law.