ORAL JUDGMENT By Court.- This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 06.02.2009 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 1600 C of 2008 by which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa having conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. found prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them to procure•, their attendance for facing the trial for the above stated offence and by the same order he refused to summon against accused Brajesh Kumar Singh. 2. The brief fact, which lies to me this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No.2. namely, Sangita Singh filed complaint Case bearing Complaint case No.1600 C of 2008 against the petitioners and one Brajesh Kumar Singh alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 on 10.07.1988 and at the time of marriage, her father had given rupees five lacs and ornaments worth rupees five lacs in gift but when. she went to her in-laws house, petitioners and above stated Brajesh Kumar Singh started pressurizing her to fetch rupees one lacs more and one maruti car in dowry and when she made protest, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioners and above stated Brajesh Kumar Singh and in the meantime, she came to know about the illicit relationship of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3. She further alleged that when she raised objection about the above stated illicit relationship, she was mercilessly beaten up by the petitioners and aforesaid Brajesh Kumar Singh on 06.08.2005 and. thereafter, she gave information about the above stated incident to her natal people and also gave a written report to concerned police station. The above sated incident was enquired by the police and the petitioner as well as aforesaid Brajesh Kumar Singh were warned by the police officials. She further alleged that on 29.08.2005 an informatory petition bearing Sanha No. 1422 of 2005 was given by her before Sub Divisional Magistrate. The above sated incident was enquired by the police and the petitioner as well as aforesaid Brajesh Kumar Singh were warned by the police officials. She further alleged that on 29.08.2005 an informatory petition bearing Sanha No. 1422 of 2005 was given by her before Sub Divisional Magistrate. Saharsa and when petitioners and Brajesh Kumar Singh came to know about the filing of aforesaid Sanha petition, they made captive her in a room and stopped providing any meal to her but, anyhow, her neighbours came to know about her condition and they got unlocked the room and thereafter, she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 02.09.2005, and on that very date she was again beaten up by her in-laws including her husband. She came to her parents' house and informed her parents about the above stated incident but she did not lodge any case against her in-laws as well as her husband. She further alleged that on 15.09.2008, she alongwith her father, namely, Sri Bishundeo Singh went to the house of her husband but her husband as well as in laws misbehaved with her and also assaulted her and again repeated the above stated illegal demand and. thereafter, on 16.09.2008, she gave a petition to State Women Commission. Patna as well as Secretary, Human Rights, Delhi and also filed the above stated complaint case on 20.10.2008. 3. The learned trial Court after conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above. 4. The Opposite party No.2 made her appearance before this Court and the case was admitted on 30.08.2010 for hearing. The matter was referred, to Patna High Court. Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 12.07.2011 and the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre. Patna High Court, Patna but mediation could not succeed and. accordingly, the above stated mediation centre reported to this Court that in spite of best efforts taken by mediation centre, mediation could not be materialized. 5. Both the parties were heard by this Court in length. 6. Patna High Court, Patna but mediation could not succeed and. accordingly, the above stated mediation centre reported to this Court that in spite of best efforts taken by mediation centre, mediation could not be materialized. 5. Both the parties were heard by this Court in length. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that according to complaint case itself, the marriage of Opposite Party No. 2 had solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 in the year 1988 and she led her marital life with petitioner No. 1 till the year 2005 and therefore, it is hard to believe that after 17 years of marriage the demand of dowry would be made by the petitioners. It is further submitted by him that the contents of complaint petition reflect that Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint petition due to so-called illicit relationship of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 and. therefore. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the present case as held by this Court in a decision reported in 2012 (1) PWR 94 that if the dispute between the husband and wife arose on account of so called illicit relationship of husband and even if, the contents of complaint are taken into consideration then also, it cannot be said that dispute between husband and wife arose on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand and so the application of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code becomes doubtful. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order submitting that the learned Court below has rightly taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and there is no scope for this Court to interfere into the impugned order. 8. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I have gone through the record. 9. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law (gotini) of Opposite Party No.2. It is an admitted position that the present complaint has been filed on account of two reasons. 8. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I have gone through the record. 9. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law (gotini) of Opposite Party No.2. It is an admitted position that the present complaint has been filed on account of two reasons. Firstly, it is stated that just after the marriage the petitioners and one Brajesh Kumar Singh made illegal demand of rupees one lac and one maruti car in dowry and secondly, petitioner No.1 had illicit relationship with petitioner No. 3 and when the Opposite Party No.2 made protest in respect of the above stated illegal acts of the petitioners, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. 10. Here. I would like to refer Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:-For the purpose of this Section. "Cruelty" means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that to constitute the above stated offence, three ingredients are essentials. Firstly, the woman must be married. Secondly, she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and thirdly, such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. The Explanation (a) annexed with the aforesaid provision gives meaning of cruelty and aforesaid explanation (a) says that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. The Explanation (a) annexed with the aforesaid provision gives meaning of cruelty and aforesaid explanation (a) says that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. The aforesaid explanation also clarifies that the cruelty for the purposes of constituting the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code need not be physical and even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. The Explanation (b) of above stated Section says that if a harassment is meted out to a woman, such harassment should be with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 12. From bare perusal of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as its explanation, it would appear that if a woman is driven to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether it is mental or physical by willful conduct of her husband or relative, the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is constituted and similarly, if a woman is harassed by her husband or relatives to meet any unlawful demand, then also, the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is constituted. 13. In the present case, the marriage of Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized in the year 1988 and she filed the complaint case against her husband as well as relatives in the year 2008 i.e. after twenty years of her marriage and it is also clear from the contents of complaint petition that she stayed at her matrimonial home till the year 2005 after solemnization of her marriage i.e. she led her conjugal life with petitioner No. 1 for near about 17 years. Although, the contents of complaint petition reveal that just after the marriage the alleged illegal demand of more dowry was made by her husband and in-laws but no specific date and occasion have been given in the complaint petition and therefore. Although, the contents of complaint petition reveal that just after the marriage the alleged illegal demand of more dowry was made by her husband and in-laws but no specific date and occasion have been given in the complaint petition and therefore. in the aforesaid circumstance, in my view, learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that it is hard to believe that after such long gap of marriage the demand of dowry would be made and. therefore, in my view, it is not believable that the Opposite Party No.2 was harassed due to non-fulfillment of any illegal demand. 14. It is specific case of the Opposite Party No.2 that petitioner No. 1 had established illicit relationship with petitioner No.3 and in course of enquiry; the aforesaid fact has been supported by the enquiry witnesses and it is not a proper stage to make any comment on the, above stated fact and furthermore, the above stated fact requires deeper investigation which is only possible in course of trial. It is an admitted position that petitioner No. 1 is husband and petitioner No.3 is gotini (sister-in-law) of the Opposite Party No. 2 and if there as any illicit relationship between them, then the aforesaid act of petitioner No. 1 shall certainly cause mental torture to Opposite Party No. 2 and shall constitute an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and shall come under the definition of cruelty but according to complaint case itself, it was petitioner No.1. who indulged into extra-marital relationship and. therefore, even if petitioner No. 3 co-operated in the above stated relationship, then also, she can not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. who indulged into extra-marital relationship and. therefore, even if petitioner No. 3 co-operated in the above stated relationship, then also, she can not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So far as the decision reported in 2012(1) PWR-94 is concerned, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the present case in respect of petitioner No. 1 because in the aforesaid case, the husband of the victim had not challenged the order of cognizance rather the in-laws had challenged their prosecution and after considering the facts of the above stated case, this Court came to conclusion that dispute between the wife and husband had arisen out on account of illicit relationship and therefore, the in-laws could not have prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code but in the present case, not only in-laws but husband of Opposite party No. 2 has also challenged the impugned order and, therefore, in my view, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in respect of husband of the Opposite Party No.2. 16. On the basis of aforesaid discussions. I am of the opinion that this quashing petition is liable to be partly allowed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2009 is, hereby quashed in respect of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 and so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, his prayer for quashing the impugned order stands dismissed. 17. In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed of. 18. It goes without saying that the order dated 31.08.2009 by which the further proceeding of complaint case No. 1600 C of 2008 had been stayed by this Court shall stand vacated in respect of petitioner No. 1 and the learned trial Court shall proceed against petitioner No.1. Petition disposed of