Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 552 (PAT)

Bibi Zarina Khatoon @ Zarina v. State Of Bihar

2006-06-30

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 26.5.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners and other accused of the case under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in complaint Case No. 301/ 2003 and has directed to issue summons against them. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and that there are differences between the husband and wife from before and the complainant-O.R was threatening the petitioners and other accused of the case to implicate in a false case. He further submitted that one of the petitioners on apprehension of their implication had filed an informatory petition (Annexure 4) in which he stated about high-handedness on the part of the complainant and her family members from her Naihar side. Learned counsel further submitted that Annexure 6 would show enmity between the parties from before. Therefore, the present prosecution is mala fide and vexatious in nature and only on the basis of parrot like statements of some witnesses the learned C.J.M. was not justified in taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioners. 4. It is well settled that at this stage the Magistrate is required only to see whether the complaint petition discloses any offence against the accused and whether there is any legal evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate has neither to weigh the evidence nor consider the defence of the accused. This Court at this stage also cannot consider the defence of the petitioners or documents filed by them. 5. So when the complaint petition shows that the allegations made therein constitute offence and the impugned order shows that the complainant and the three witnesses examined by the complainant have supported the allegation and the learned Magistrate after considering these has found a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and passed the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. 6. The application is dismissed.