1. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants herein, who are the husband and wife, seek quashing of an order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2578(C)/2013 [Jyotsna Prabha Sinha Vs. Vijay Lal and others]. Cognizance for an offence under Section 498A read with Section 323 I.P.C. having been taken against the present applicants along with other co-accused persons, this application by the present applicants who are Accused Nos. 7 and 8 before the trial court.

2. Facts in brief go to show that the complainant Smt. Jyotsna Prabha Sinha was married to co-accused and Accused No. 1 in the complaint case Sri Vijay Lal. It is the case of the complainant that Vijay Lal and other family members who have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were demanding dowry, harassing her and, therefore, the complaint was filed. As far as the present applicants are concerned, they are alleged to be friends of the complainant’s husband. It is said that Applicant No. 1 herein Kartikey Kumar is the friend of Vijay Lal and Petitioner No. 2 is wife of Petitioner No. 1. They had been instrumental in arranging the marriage. List of gifts and dowry items were exchanged in their presence and allegations are made against them to say that when the other family members who were demanding dowry they also participated in supporting the aforesaid demands. It is not necessary to go into details of the allegation made against the present applicants as the only legal question involved in this case is with regard to applicability of the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. as far as the present applicants are concerned. That apart, on a complete scanning of the complaint, which is filed as Annexure-1, it is seen that the present applicants are alleged to have instrumental in getting the marriage fixed and it is alleged that they have also, along with the complainant’s husband and family members, demanded dowry and caused harassment to her.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants invited out attention to the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. and argued that an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. can be committed only by a person who happens to be the husband of the complainant or the relative of the husband. It is argued that so long as the relationship between the complainant and the accused does not fall in this category of being a husband or a relative of the husband, no prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. is permissible. Learned counsel invited out attention to the following judgments in support of the aforesaid contentions:-

(1). U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another- (2009) 6 SCC 757

(2). Sunita Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.- (2010) 10 SCC 190

(3). State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (2014) 3 PLJR Supreme Court 321

4. He also referred to various judgments of other High Courts on this count, namely, an order passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30047 of 2013 on 28.07.2014 (Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Mahto & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.), a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Cr. Revision No. 3228 of 2017 (Bhagwan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 21.11.2017, another judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ruchi Jain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No. 8293/2012) decided on 29.08.2013, a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sumona Mukherjee @ Sumana Mukherji & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.- 2012 (3) JLJR 220 and finally an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Misc. No. M-13946 of 2009 (Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 22.11.2009 to say that so long as the accused is not the husband or relative of the husband of a woman who is subjected to cruelty or harassment a complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. is not maintainable. Learned counsel further argued that if the entire complaint is analyzed, no offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the