Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 557 (PAT)

Ali Imam v. State of Bihar

2006-06-30

body2006
ORDER This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 186 of 2005 by which he has ordered to issue summons against the petitioners for standing trial under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 Rezidan Khatoon is that she was married to Afzal Imam on 14.4.1998. After marriage she went to her Sarsural A daughter was born from the wedlock. After some period from her marriage the accused persons, who were husband and in-laws started demanding dowry in the shape of Television and golden ring and for that they started torturing her in various ways. Ultimately on 13.4.2005 the accused persons assaulted Opposite Party No.2 and drove her out of their house. 4. The complainant, hence filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas against her husband and in-laws, in all six persons for taking action under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. She examined three witnesses in enquiry under section 202 of the Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined by her, found that the complainant and the witnesses have supported the allegations made in the complaint petition. He accordingly, found sufficient materials against the accused including the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and elder brothers of the husband of the complainant for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-are innocent. They have no concern with the Opposite Party No.2. There has been partition in the family and they live separately which would be apparent from the agreement (Annexure2). He also submitted that petitioner no. 1, father-in-law had filed cases against the brothers of the complainant (Opposite Party No.2) who happens to be the son-in-law of petitioner no. 1 and hence, to pressurise the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 filed this complaint. He also submitted that petitioner no. 1, father-in-law had filed cases against the brothers of the complainant (Opposite Party No.2) who happens to be the son-in-law of petitioner no. 1 and hence, to pressurise the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 filed this complaint. He has referred to Annexures 3 & 4 in support of his contention. 6. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance and issuance of processes against the accused, the Magistrate has only to see whether the complaint petition discloses an offence and whether there is any evidence in support of the same. It is also well settled that at this State the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the accused. The court also cannot look into the documents supporting the defence version. This Court also at this stage cannot consider the defence version. The above defence of the accused can be considered only during trial. The above submissions put on behalf of the petitioners hence are of no avail to the petitioners. 7. The impugned order shows that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses and applying his mind has found a prima facie case against the petitioners and passed the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the result, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed.