passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Patna, where Criminal Revision 271 of 2021 preferred by
petitioners was dismissed, challenging the order dated
19.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
Patna, where learned J.M. took cognizance for the offences
punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, (in
short ‘IPC’) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against all the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 9385 of 2018
arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 158 of 2018.
3. The case of prosecution speaks in brief that
O.P. No. 2 namely Sudarshana Jyoti alleged that her marriage
was arranged with Nishikant in 2017. She claimed that
Nishikant forcibly established physical relations with her. Later
on 19.12.2017, both applied for marriage registration under
the Special Marriage Act at Samastipur, but Nishikant
subsequently refused to attend the scheduled marriage in
January 2018, whereafter her family members approached
Nishikant’s family. It is alleged that, despite having already
received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards marriage related
expenses, the accused persons further made an unlawful
demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- as dowry, in contravention of the
provisions of the D.P. Act. The marriage was scheduled again
for 09.02.2018, but when the informant’s relatives visited the
petitioners’ house with gifts, they remained adamant about
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
their dowry demand and continued harassment. A complaint
was also made to the Mahila Police Station, but it was in vain.
The informant further alleged that on 24.08.2018, when she
visited the petitioners’ house again requesting her marriage,
Nishikant and other family members assaulted her, causing
severe injuries, including a fracture in her finger. They also
allegedly refused to return Rs. 1 lakh and threatened to kill
her. It was subsequently revealed to the informant that
accused Nishikant was in the process of finalizing marriage
with another woman for dowry, and that he had a consistent
pattern of deceitfully inducing marriage by misrepresenting
his age and income, with the ulterior motive of extracting
dowry, thereby committing offences punishable under the
I.P.C. & D.P. Act, 1961.