PATNA, India, Sept. 29 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 29:

Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners duly assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsels; Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in Danapur P.S. Case No. 763 of 2019 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Danapur, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application is to the effect that the informant/O.P. No.2 lodged an FIR stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Raushan Lal, son of the petitioners, on 02.12.2015 and her parents gifted ornaments and articles worth Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the father-in-law i.e., petitioner No.1 had taken a loan from her aunt to the tune of Rs.10,51,000/- for constructing a house, however, the same was never returned. The informant further alleged that immediately after her marriage, she had gone to her in-law's house at Lodhipur, Patna where her father-in-law was staying in the police line, all the accused persons including the petitioners started abusing the informant/O.P. No.2 alleging that she had not brought enough dowry along with her. It is further alleged that on various occasion all the named accused persons including the petitioners used to abuse her and even assault her, and once she was ousted from the house on 14.11.2016.

4. The informant/O.P. No.2 has further alleged that the son of the petitioners thereafter filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2017, and the informant once again, on the basis of the undertaking given by the son of the petitioners, went to her sasural, however the torture continued, and there was no change in the attitude of the in-laws including the petitioners. The informant has alleged that once the petitioners and her husband had tried to kill her by putting her on fire, however, she managed to escape.

5. The informant has further alleged that she later came to know that her husband was not working at Samastipur Sugar Mill, which she was given to understand, and presently he was working in some college in Uttar Pradesh. However, she was never told about the exact place where her husband was living nor was she taken to the place of his service. The informant lastly has alleged that from the various sources including the social media she came to know that her husband has already performed second marriage with someone and hence the FIR was being lodged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the informant/O.P. No.2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact the petitioners resided at their own accommodation at Patna, where the informant had barely lived along with them, and she had been living with her husband at Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh, where their son is in service with a college and as such the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the matrimonial affairs of their son and as well as the informant.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM4NTUxMSMyMDIzIzEjTg==-w9TEOC9t1bs=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.