AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mridula Mishra, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.12.2005, passed by S.D.J.M., Katihar in Complaint Case No. C.A. 1884 of 2004 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
The complainant is the legally married wife of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 5 is mother-in-law and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner no. 6 is the second wife of petitioner no.1 who is husband of the complainant.
Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the allegation in the complaint petition shows that the demand of dowry was made in the year 2002 and the complaint petition has been filed in the year 2004 as such there is delay in filing the complaint.
From perusal of the statement made in the complaint I find that the delay has been explained by making statement that when the complainant was thrown away from the matrimonial home in the year 2002, the father and other family members have tried to settle the dispute in the meantime petitioner no.1 has solemnised second marriage. Left with no other option this complaint petition has been filed. So far offence u/s 494 is concerned, there is no denial by the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly this application is dismissed.