Heard the parties.

2. The present application for quashing has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Bench of this Court to consider " as to whether Section 4 of dowry prohibition Act as amended by' Bihar Act IV of 1976 Stood repealed or modified in view of the subsequent amendment of Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition by Act by the Parliament Act 63 of 1984?"

3. This question has been referred by the learned Single Judge in view of two decisions of two different Single Benches of this Court, i.e. the decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Pd. Sinha @ Sanjay Kumar Singh & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Cr. M.P. No. 436/2006*. Which, according to the referring Judge, is in direct conflict with the other decisions rendered in the case of "Purshottam Dubey & Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2005(3) JCR 456 (Jhr.) [ : 2005(4) JLJR 460)" and the case of ."Gautam Joshi & Ors vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2003(2) JCR 602 (Jhr.) [: 2006(2) JLJR 557]".

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 Vivek Rai was solemnised with G.P. No.2 Sunita Rai on 3.7.1998 in Bokaro Steel City according to the Hindu customs and rituals. The G.P. NO.2, i.e. the Wife filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 330/1999 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas against the four petitioners alleging commission of the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 307 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging therein that the petitioner was married to the opposite party no. 2 Sunita Rai on 3.7.1998 to Bokaro Steel City and after marriage the opposite party no. 2/complainant went to her matrimonial home at Allahabad. After two days staying in her matrimonial home, her father-in-law on the plea that her father was solvent to pay demanded Rs. 1.5 lakh which was supported by both of her Nanad. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-was demanded as dowry before the marriage. Though her father was not in a position to pay such huge amount but from his retiral benefits he got a draft of Rs. 3,41,000/- prepared on 18.5.1998 and sent to the father of the petitioner which was accepted on certain terms. When the opposite party no. 2/complainant appraised. the matter relating to demand of dowry by her in laws before her husband, he also reiterated the demand besides, he raised demand of a Maruti Car to be brought from her parental house. On the third day no food was provided to her and on the fourth day she was pressurized by her father-in-law to convey on telephone to her parents about the demand raised by them. On such receiving telephonic message her father and brother came to Allahabad to whom she narrated all the facts and after putting land on mortgage her father obtained Rs. 1,50,000/- and paid It to the accused persons and only then the opposite party no. 2/complainant was allowed to go with her father after retaining all her Jewelleries and it was cautioned that she would be allowed in her matrimonial home only on the delivery of a Maruti Car by her father. When the petitioner used to visit the parental home of the opposite party no. 2, he used to reiterate the demand of car and also used to torture the opposite party no. 2/complainant mentally and physically. In New Delhi also where the petitioner was posted. the opposite party no. 2/complainant was subjected to torture for the fulfillment of the demand of the car. It is alleged that the petitioner used to confine her on the house under lock and key whenever used to go out on his job and used to return in the state of intoxication. No arrangement was made for preparation of food in the house and she was brutally assaulted and mentally tortured by him and her physical condition. therefore, day by day deteriorated. During the Durga Puja her father-in-law as well as sister-in-laws visited New Delhi and they also tortured and reiterated the demand of Rs. Two lakhs .for purchasing a Maruti C