Sudama Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46339 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2325 Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- PATNA

1. Sudama Devi Wife of Late Janeshwar Singh

2. Ramesh Singh Son of Late Janeshwar Singh

3. Pushpa Devi Wife of Ramesh Singh All Resident of Village – Jay Bigha,
P.S.-Madanpur, Dist.-Aurangabad
…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Smt. Laxmi Singh Wife of Rajesh Kumar Singh, Daughter of Shyam
Bahadur Singh Resident of Mohalla – Chiraiyatarn, Gali No. 1 P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Dist.-Patna
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 12-10-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the

order dated 14.02.011 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2325(C) of

2010 by which cognizance under Section 323, 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has

been taken and the petitioners have been summoned by the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017

2

learned Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the

elder brother of the husband and petitioner no. 3 is the wife

of the elder brother of the husband of

complainant/Opposite Party No. 2. All these petitioners

have been falsely implicated on a general and omnibus

allegation against them.

Learned counsel submits that from perusal of

the complaint petitioner it will appear that the husband of

the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is in service at

Kolkata, and it is her case that she requested her husband to

keep her with him at Kolkata, but he did not agree. A son

was born from the marriage on 31.07.2002. The allegation

against the elder brother that he told the Opposite Party

No. 2 that unless Maruti Car is given in dowry she will not go

to Kolkata and shall live in present condition has no basis,

because it is her own case that she was taken to Kolkata in

April, 2005, where she was staying peacefully with her

husband, but later on allegations have come that the

mother-in-law and the wife of elder brother threw her out
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017

3

of the house when she came back from Kolkata.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further

submits that the allegations against the mother-in-law, elder

brother and wife of elder brother who are all separate and

are admittedly living in village are false, concocted and

baseless. In fact, the allegations are super-imposition just to

falsely implicate the entire family in the present case due to

matrimonial discord between the Opposite Party No. 2 and

her husband. Filing of the present case after about nine

years from the date of marriage itself indicate that so far as

the family members (petitioners) are concerned, they have

never actively participated in any alleged act. He submits

that this normal tendency to implicate the entire family

members under Section 498A I.P.C. by imposing baseless

allegations even against those members of the family who

are separately living and having no concern with the family

of the complainant as is the present case.

No one has appeared to oppose the present

application even though Opposite Party No. 2 has entered

appearance through her advocate.

This court has considered the statements made
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017

4

in the complaint petition. The marriage is of the year 2001,

the allegations mostly cluster around the conduct of the

husband, though in the later part, these petitioners have

also been implicated on some vague and general allegations

of committing cruelty without their being any description as

to when such alleged occurrence took place.

In the opinion of this court, the petitioners being

closed kith and kin of the husband of the complainant-

Opposite Party No. 2 are being prosecuted for sheer

harassment, therefore, continuance of the proceeding

against them, in the opinion of this Court, will only be an

abuse of the process of the court.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as

against the present petitioners and the application is

allowed to the extent indicated above.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.10.2017
Transmission Date 12.10.2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *