- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 in person.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case no.1948 of 2010 including the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the then Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . It is the case of the complainant that the complainant having married the accused Mukul Prasad when came to her in -laws' place, accused persons started taunting and humiliating her for bringing insufficient dowry. They also put forth demand of car.
(3.) FURTHER it has been alleged that the accused no.2, father -in -law on one pretext or other created such circumstance/situation that the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home only after four days of the marriage. She returned to her parents home at Ranchi. Thereafter an attempt was made by the parents of the complainant so that accused persons may take the complainant to her in -laws' place but they never cared to take the complainant to her in -laws' place, rather they insisted upon to get the demand fulfilled. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences as stated above has been taken against the petitioner who happens tobe the married sister -in -law of the complainant as well as mother -in -law, father -in -law and another sister - in -law and also against other accused persons. That order is under challenge. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant itself that the complainant left her in -laws' place after four days of the marriage and in such situation, whatever allegation of demand or subjection to cruelty has been levelled it appears to be improbable and that allegation which has been put forth in the complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner at one point of time taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and at other place, it has been alleged that the petitioner contacted the parents of the complainant for dowry but there has been absolutely no allegation of subjection to cruelty and hence, no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner when no specific allegation is there against the petitioner of putting forth demand of dowry and therefore, any continuation of the proceeding would amount abuse of the process of the court. Further it was submitted that the petitioner is a British citizen and had come to India to attend marriage ceremony of his brother and had stayed in India only for 30 days and as such, it is not expected from a person not visiting the place frequently that she would be putting forth any demand and in such situation, the case 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] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that anxious consideration be given by the court in case of relatives of the husband who never visits or rarely visits the place of complainant/informant who lodges the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, the person who is being not alleged specifically to have subjected the complainant to torture, he/she is never warranted to be put on trial.;