ORDER

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner-husband under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 97 of 2017. The present case emanates from Supaul P.S. Case No. 297/2009 registered under sections 323, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution story relevant for the purpose of the present application in brief is that, the informant-wife (O.P. no.2 herein), Rinku Kumari (Opposite Party no.2) had filed a written complaint before the police on 14.10.2009. The informant had stated therein that she was married to the petitioner around four years therefrom according to the Hindu rites and rituals which was solemnized at the house of the father of the informant. The informant has further stated that in her marriage with the present petitioner, her father had spent according to his capacity and gifted jewelry, clothes, utensils, items of furniture etc. and the father of the informant had also gifted gold necklace chain, ring, motorcycle and clothes to the petitioner-husband. The informant next states in the written application to the police that after her marriage she went to stay at her matrimonial house at Panchgachiya and thereafter she was blessed with a son from the wedlock who was aged two years at the time of the informant making the aforesaid complaint. The informant alleges that for about one and a half years, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, her three sisters-in-law and her nandosi had conspired together to demanded rupees two lakhs from her father as dowry. It is further alleged that when the informant conveyed the inability of her father to fulfil their demands, the above-named persons started to torture the informant by beating her, asking her to leave her matrimonial house, stop her from eating and even avoided medical treatment to the informant when she fell ill. It is stated that upon learning about the mistreatment of his daughter, the father came to mediate whereupon the in-laws maintained cordial relations for some time. The informant next alleges that on 14.10.2009 at around 05:00 PM, the abovenamed persons started torturing and threatening the informant and asked the informant to leave her matrimonial house. It is alleged that when the informant resisted, the above-named persons started to beat the informant and the mother-in-law handed over kerosene oil to the accused Anjali Kumari and the said accused Anjali Kumari poured the kerosene oil on the informant and accused Gudiya Kumari started to light the match stick with an intention to ignite fire. It is stated that in the meanwhile neighbours assembled and snatched the lighted matchstick which saved the life of the informant. It is thereafter alleged that the informant was thrown out of her matrimonial house. It is furthermore alleged that when the informant demanded the jewelry, clothes etc. gifted by her father during marriage, her husband and father-in-law threatened to kill the informant. The informant lastly stated that upon being thrown out of her matrimonial house the informant along with her child reached the house of her father and thereafter informed the jurisdictional police.

4. Based upon the written complaint, Supaul P.S. Case 297 of 2009 was registered on 14.10.2009 was registered under sections 498A, 323 read with section 34 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon investigation the police submitted charge sheet and the learned Court vide order dated 25.07.2011 took cognizance against all seven accused persons under the aforesaid sections.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the afores