Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 499 (PAT)

Manik Ratan Chatterjee v. State of Bihar

2012-03-23

VIKASH JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Vikash Jain. J.-The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A and 34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. According to the written report filed by the informant/opposite party No.2, Anandita MukheIjee, it is alleged that the petitioners herein being mausa and mausi of her husband. late Sukant Mukherjee were residents of Punaichak, Patna and had mediated in the marriage of their nephew with the informant, and that various amounts such as Rs.2,50,000/- in cash/cheque, 200 gm. gold, 500 gm. silver etc. were given as gifts at the time of marriage by the father of the informant. It is further alleged that sometime after the marriage the informant's husband and the accused persons started demanding dowry, which demands were supported by the petitioners. It has specifically been alleged that these petitioners went from Patna on the request of the informant's husband and took part in the beating and assaulting of the informant, and also that at the behest of the petitioner No. 1 the informant's husband and dewar attempted to kill the informant by throttling her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the written report of the informant is mischievous, as it is in fact the informant and her family members who have inflicted torture on the informant's husband and his family members, ultimately leading to his suicide. In this regard, he invites attention to the suicide note left behind by the husband as contained in annexure-2, wherein it is stated that the informant wanted to obtain compassionate appointment after causing his death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that they are not members of the immediate family of the informant's husband rather they are his mausa and mausi, and had merely been involved in the negotiations for the marriage. It is submitted that Mausa and Mausi cannot be treated as relatives within the meaning of Section 498(A) Cr.P.C., in the spirit of the decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 23666/ 2003, Dr. Sharda Nandan Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., wherein the father-in-law of the sister of the husband was held not to be a relative of the husband. 5. Misc. No. 23666/ 2003, Dr. Sharda Nandan Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., wherein the father-in-law of the sister of the husband was held not to be a relative of the husband. 5. It is further stated that the petitioners reside in Patna whereas the offences are said to have been committed at the informant's matrimonial home at Katihar, and as such the petitioners ought not to be held liable for the offences alleged. In support of his submissions, he relied on a decision rendered in 2012 (2) East Cr C 34 (SC) : 2010 (7) SCC 667 , Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand as also on the decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 41228/2008, Rina Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr. He has also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions 2009 (6) SCC 667 , Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra; 2009 (10) SCC 184 , Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti; (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand; 2005 (2) East Cr C 130 (SC) : 2005 (2) PLJR (SC) 193, Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submits that on the uncontroverted statements as alleged in the complaint petition, offences are made out against the petitioners and the impugned order of cognizance cannot be faulted as it is a preliminary stage where the learned Magistrate is required only to see whether or not a prima facie case is made out. 7. He further submits that even if for moment it be assumed though not admitted that the petitioners are not relatives of the husband of the informant that at the highest may be a defense as far as the offence under Section 498(A), I.P.C. is concerned but there are clear allegations rendering them liable for the offences under Section 323 I.P.C. as well as Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. On this score as well, therefore, there is no error in the impugned cognizance order. 8. As regards the suicide note left behind by the husband it has been submitted that such suicide note has presently not been made part of complaint case No. 1687/2000 which was filed by the husband's brother Srikant Mukharji, just three months after the suicide. On this score as well, therefore, there is no error in the impugned cognizance order. 8. As regards the suicide note left behind by the husband it has been submitted that such suicide note has presently not been made part of complaint case No. 1687/2000 which was filed by the husband's brother Srikant Mukharji, just three months after the suicide. In any event, such document may not be looked into for the purpose of testing the validity of the cognizance order being not a part of the record of the proceedings before the learned trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 invites attention to his I.A. No.222/2012 filed with a prayer for vacating the interim order granted by this Court wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that some of the co-accused members of the husband's family were still harassing the informant and were not allowing her to reside at the residence at Katihar. He further points out from para 8 thereof that in course of mediation proceedings, the petitioners appeared on 02.04.2011 and agreed to return all the articles and ornaments given at the time of the marriage, but on the very next day they appeared before the mediation centre and flatly refuse to return the same which, therefore, resulted in failure of mediation proceedings. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the opposite party No. 2 that the learned Magistrate has committed no error in taking cognizance after finding a prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioners on the allegations made in the complaint. As is well settled, the defense of the petitioners is not relevant at the stage of taking cognizance. 11. In this view of the matter, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage, and the petition accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.