- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.8.2010 passed in Complaint Case bearing no.C/1-1857 of 2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners as well as other accused persons. Mr.A.K. Sahani learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 happens tobe the married Nanad of the complainant whereas the petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant and as such,they had nothing to do with the affairs of the wife and husband and as such, it is quite unconceivable that they would be putting forth demand of dowry or would subject the complainant to torture. In this regard, it was further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is presently residing in the United States of America whereas the petitioner no.2 resides at Dehradun and they seldom visit the place which happens to be in-laws' place (Jamshedpur) of the complainant, though they were present at Jamshedpur at the time of marriage but keeping in view the fact that both resides at remote place, they are not expected that they would put forth demand of dowry and would subject the complainant to torture.
(3.) IN such situation, the order taking cognizance warrants to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667] . As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 by referring to the allegations made in the complaint petition submitted that there has been specific allegation against these two petitioners of putting forth demand of dowry and subjection to torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and as such, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered by this Court.;