Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1074 (PAT)

Rana Chakraborty v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-20

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 when the matter was called out despite her having entered appearance. 2. The petitioners would be the husband and wife respectively. They would be aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 2.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. 1061/03 by the S.D.J.M., Patna under Sections 494 and 498A of I.PC. and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per allegations in the complaint the complainant was married to accused No.1. The present petitioners would be residing in the neighbourhood and petitioner no. 1 would be employed in the same company where the accused No. 1 would be employed. Learned counsel makes a short submission that on the basis of allegations itself it was manifest that the petitioners would not be the relatives of the husband and, therefore, Section 498A of I.P.C. would have no application. Petitioner No. 1 would at best be a co-employee of the husband of the complainant. The next submission is that even as per allegations the petitioner No. 2 would not have married the husband of the complainant. At best there would have been an extra marital affair between them as per the allegations, which in any event is disputed by the petitioners. No offence under Section 494 I.P.C. also can be stated to have been, therefore, made out. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations has made in the complaint, this Court upholds the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. This Court is, therefore, satisfied from the allegations made no offence can be stated to have been made out against the petitioners under Section 498A of I.P.C, they admittedly not being the relatives of the husband as per the allegations in the complaint. For the same reason, the complaint would at best allege extra marital relations between petitioner No. 2 and the husband of the complainant for which Section 494 of I.P.C. could not be invoked. 5. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is prima facie satisfied that no offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. 5. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is prima facie satisfied that no offence under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court would arrive at the conclusion that on the basis of the allegations as made in the complaint he subjected the petitioners to prosecution under the offence of Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act merely for the reason of the words "any person mentioned therein" would clearly be an abuse of process of law. 6. In the result this application is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 2.7.2003 and the entire proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 1061/03 pending before the S.D.J.M., Patna insofar as two petitioners be concerned alone is, hereby, quashed.