IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34149 of 2014

1. Shivjee Pandit Son of Late Chhathu Pandit

2. Sikila Devi W/O Shivjee Pandit Both are Resident of Village- Mau Bazar, P.S.
Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sanju Devi W/O Vishnu Kant Pandit, D/O Baleshwar Pandit Both are Resident
of Village- Mau Bazar, P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur. Present
Addres Resident of Village- Rani, P.S. Bachhwara, District- Begusarai, Naihar’s
Address- Jalalpur, P.S.- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-08-2017

Heard.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to

quash the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by SDJM, Begusarai in Complaint Case

No.74 of 2012. The court below as per impugned order, finding prima-facie case

for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 379/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act ordered for issuance of summons against the

petitioners.

3. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint case on the file of CJM

alleging inter-alia that after the death of her first husband, she married with

Kishun Kant Pandit and thereafter she along with her three children started

residing with her second husband and in-laws. After few months of her marriage

the husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.1,00000/- and one motorcycle. The

said demand was not fulfilled and so her husband and in-laws assaulted and after
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34149 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

2/3

snatching her entire belongings ousted from their house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Opposite Party

No.2 was earlier married with one Sanjay Pandit and from the said wed lock she

was blessed with three children. After the death of first husband, the Opposite

Party No.2 was married with Kishun Kant Pandit who is own sister’s son of the

first husband. The marriage was performed with the consent of both the parties

and there was absolutely no demand of any dowry. The petitioners are parents-in-

laws of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant Opposite Party No.2 herself left

the house and started residing at her father’s place and thereafter went at the place

of her first husband. The allegation of torture at the instance of in-laws does not

arise and they had no occasion to visit at her paternal place or at the place of her

first husband. The court below has/had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint petition. The learned court below without applying judicial mind has

taken cognizance against the petitioners and so the impugned order is fit to be

quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the

submission. It was submitted that the charges have been framed against the

petitioners and so at this stage, the cognizance order cannot be quashed.

6. On perusal of impugned order and complaint petition, I find that

the main allegation of torture is against the husband. The complainant was

married with one Sanjay Pandit and from the said wed-lock she was blessed with

three children. After the death of first husband, the Opposite Party No.2 married

with the son of the present petitioners. The husband is the own sister’s son of the

first husband of the complainant. The husband has challenged the validity of his

marriage by filing a Divorce Case no.152 of 2011 on 08.09.2011 and after filing

of divorce case the complainant has filed the present complaint case no.74C of

2012 on 10.01.2012. The allegation of torture and demand of dowry appears
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34149 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

3/3

omnibus against the petitioners who are parents-in-laws.

7. In this regard, I would like to refer the cases of Neelu Chopra vs.

Bharti (2009) 10, SCC 184, Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of UP Others

(2012) 10 SCC page 741, 2013(2) PCCR 210 (SC) and Preeti Gupta and others

vs. State of Jharkhand Others (2010) 7, SCC page 667 wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court has reiterated that in absence of specific allegation and prima-facie

case against co-accuseds, the order taking cognizance will be bad in law and that

will be an abuse of process of Court.

8. The petitioners are parents-in-law of the Opposite Party No.2 who

was having three children from the first husband. After, the death of first husband,

she married with the son of these petitioners. The second husband is none else

than the own Bhagina of her first husband. The allegation of torture is omnibus

against these petitioners. The Opposite Party No.2 is presently residing at the

place of her first husband. The allegation against these petitioners that they visited

at the paternal place of Opposite Party No.2 and also at the place of her first

husband is vague and omnibus and so if their prosecution is allowed to continue,

it would be an abuse of process of the Court.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order dated

12.07.2012 taking cognizance with respect to these petitioners and their criminal

prosecution on the basis of said cognizance order is quashed and this criminal

miscellaneous application is allowed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

B.Kr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 28.08.2017
Transmission 28.08.2017
Date