Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1602 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sah v. State of Bihar

2007-09-27

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2007
ORDER : Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 against whom notice was issued by ORDER :dated 3.1.2007 and such issued notice has been deemed to have validly served as is recorded in the ORDER :dated 25.7.2007. 2. The sole petitioner is aggrieved by an ORDER :dated 22.7.06 whereby and whereunder learned SDJM, Bikramganj has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 332/06 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition, it would appear to be out and out a false case inasmuch as the allegation that demand of dowry was made by the petitioner after marriage of his brother Anil Sah had already been fixed with the niece of the complainant, has not been supported by the father of the girl or mother of the girl or by the girl herself who in fact were not examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court towards a fact that Anil Sah, the younger brother of the petitioner in this case has himself sworn an affidavit in support of this petition stating therein that no such marriage had been fixed. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if there was an iota of truth in the said story, he would be bridegroom i.e. Anil Sah would not have been spared. Counsel ultimately has concluded his submission by saying that it is a mala fide complaint with a calculated design for exerting pressure for getting his niece married to Anil Sah, the younger brother of the petitioner. 4. I have examined the materials on record including the complaint petition and from the averment made therein, I am satisfied that it is apparently a false case because the allegation of giving gifts and jewelleries valued at Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner and his mother at the time of engagement (CHHEKA) does not inspire confidence. It is well known that at the time of CHHEKA, no family member of the groom is bestowed with the gift. 40,000/- to the petitioner and his mother at the time of engagement (CHHEKA) does not inspire confidence. It is well known that at the time of CHHEKA, no family member of the groom is bestowed with the gift. Added to it, even in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. none from the family inasmuch as either the father of the girl or mother of the girl or the girl herself has come out to support the allegation of either cheating or demand of dowry. 5. It was in this background that this court has also issued notice to the O.P. No. 2 but as indicated above, the O.P. No. 2 has not chosen to appear in this case. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the allegations are inherently improbable and there is a delay of nearly two months in filing of the complaint and as such this Court is satisfied that the ORDER :taking cognizance is bad, Continuance of prosecution of the petitioner in this case in fact would amount to abuse of process of the court. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned ORDER :so far it relates to the petitioner Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sah is quashed. This application is accordingly allowed.