- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1, who has been alleged to have illicit relation with the husband of the informant whereas the petitioner no.2 -the father of the petitioner no.1, are being prosecuted for an offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, though they, in terms of the provision as contained in Section 498A of the Indian, never happen to be the relative of the husband of the informant.
(2.) SINCE , the person other than the husband and his relative cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Bariatu P.S. Case No.142 of 2008 (G.R. No.3591 of 2008) including the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the petitioners are not the relative of the husband of the informant rather according to the informant, the petitioner No.1 who was having illicit relation with the husband of the informant and the petitioner No.2 -the father of the petitioner no.1, are being prosecuted on the allegation that they have assaulted the informant, but the court below has never taken cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code nor there appears to be any allegation with respect to commission of the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and hence, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed so far these petitioners are concerned, as the petitioners never happen to be the relative of the husband of the informant.
(3.) IN this respect, reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in {(2010)10 SCC 190} .;