Sandeep Kumar.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. vide Hawai Adda P.S. Case No.15 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the charge-sheet dated 19.07.2022 filed against the petitioner.

3. The informant (respondent no.7) is the aunt of the petitioner. As per the F.I.R., the marriage between the uncle of the petitioner namely, Dr. Parmanand Paramhans and the informant was solemnized on 19.04.2015 as per Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage, the elder brother-in-law, his wife and three sons including the petitioner used to instigate and abuse her with filthy language. They also used to demand money from the informant and on account of non-fulfillment of said demand, they used to assault her. It has also been alleged that since the father of the informant is a retired Government employee, it was not possible for her father to fulfill the demand of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residential and other properties of his grandfather namely, late Batoran Mahto was amicably partitioned with mutual consent among his two sons i.e. the father of the petitioner namely, Hiralal Mahto and his uncle Dr. Paramanand Paramhans on 25.10.2017 by way of a partition deed prepared in presence of the Sarpanch and other respected members of the society. After the partition, the two branches of the family i.e. his father and his uncle were living separately and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to enter into the house of his uncle and assault her or to make any demand of money.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant (respondent no.7) did not specify any specific date regarding commission of such offence. She was not examined medically in support of her claim that she was assaulted by the accused persons.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the respondent no.7 (informant) had filed a complaint Case No.3985(c) of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under Sections 323, 498A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against five accused persons i.e. her husband, elder brother-in-law (Jeth), sister in-law (Jethani) and their two sons namely, Nand Kishore Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar. In the said complaint petition, the respondent no.7 (informant) made allegation of physical and mental torture and demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- along with a car, in which the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.01.2020 had taken cognizance against all the five above named accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that all four accused persons except the husband of the respondent no.7 (informant) were enlarged on bail upon surrender by the learned Magistrate. The husband of the respondent no.7 (informant) filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna wherein he was directed to explore mediation to resolve the dispute and during the mediation process, the respondent no.7 (informant) became ready to cohabit and stay with her husband and accordingly, the respondent no.7 went to Begusarai where she stayed for some time and then returned back to her parents’ house on 05.01.2021 and while returning to her parents house, the respondent no.7 made a signed declaration that she was returning to her parents house with sister and brother-in-law in safe manner and thereafter, the present F.I.R. has been filed by the respondent no.7 (informant).

7. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the complaint case, the petitioner was not an a