IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49936 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2609 Year- 2013 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
KATIHAR

1. Deepak Kumar Jha @ Raju Jha, Son of Baidyanath Jha @ Bhola Jha

2. Baidyanath Jha @ Bhola Jha, Son of Late Ram Bahadur Jha

3. Janki Devi, Wife of Baidyanath Jha
All R/o Mohalla Imergency Colony, B. Church, Rly Qt. NO 505 ‘E’, P.S. Katihar
Sahayak, District Katihar

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Jha, D/o Kumar Amrendra Bahadur Jha, Wife of Deepak Jha @ Raju
Jha, R/o Mohalla Danaria Old Jute Mills, P.O. Danaria Mills, P.S. Katihar Town,
District Katihar.

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr.Bimal Kumar, Adv.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present quashing application has been filed for

setting aside the order dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned

S.D.J.M., Katihar in Complaint Case No.2609 of 2013 by which the

learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance for the offence under Section

498A/24 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the

petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49936 of 2014 dt.08-11-2017

2/6

the petitioner no.1 is the husband, whereas petitioner nos.2 and 3 are

the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant-

opposite party no.2. Learned counsel submits that as per the

allegations in the complaint petition the marriage between the

complainant and the petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 20 th January,

2005 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The complainant gave

birth to two children and both are daughters aged about 8 years and 5

years, but the allegation is that after birth of the daughter Shweta, the

accused persons started torturing and humiliating as also assault and

abuse to the complainant was routine work of accused. It is further

stated that the accused no.1 (petitioner no.1) is a Railway employee

who earns a lot of money and spends it in wine and other activities.

Against the husband, it is alleged that when he comes home in

intoxicated conditions, indulges in abuse and assault to the

complainant. The complainant also alleges that her husband asks the

complainant to bring a cash of Rs.100000/- from the father.

In the complaint petition, the allegation against the

father-in-law is that he is also a Railway employee and he too support

his son in humiliating the complainant. It is further alleged that on 30 th

June, 2011, the accused persons in conspiracy with each other planned

to kill the complainant and they tried to kill the complainant by

pushing her from the ladder, this was informed by the complainant to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49936 of 2014 dt.08-11-2017

3/6

her father who came to the house of the complainant, but the accused

persons seeing her father fled away from the house. It is stated that a

panchayati was also held and in presence of panches the accused

persons abused the complainant and her father. At last, it is submitted

that on 05.07.2011 the accused persons drove the complainant out of

home along with children. Thereafter the complainant is said to be

residing at her parents’ house along with children.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners initially

attempted to challenge the order taking cognizance and issuance of

summons as regards all the three petitioners, his submission is that the

story as narrated in the complaint petition is only false, concocted and

baseless, however, in view of the opposition made on behalf of the

complainant-opposite party no.2 pointing out the specific allegation

against the husband (petitioner no.1) made in the complaint petition,

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire complaint

petition there is no allegation at all against the mother-in-law save and

except that vaguely and generally the word “accused persons” have

been referred from which nothing can be inferred against the mother-

in-law. Further it is submitted that no single act or omission of either

demand, abuse or assault has been made against the father-in-law or

the mother-in-law. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the

marriage is of the year 2005 and the husband of the complainant is a
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49936 of 2014 dt.08-11-2017

4/6

Railway employee who has an independent life separate from his

father and mother and, therefore, whatever be the allegations against

the husband at least father-in-law and mother-in-law have been falsely

arrayed as party accused in the complaint petition. The allegations that

the father too support the son in humiliating the complainant and the

further allegation that accused persons in conspiracy to each other

planned to kill the complainant are vague and have been made only

casually just to harass the entire family members including old age

father and mother of the husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners

places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Pritam Ashok Sadaphule Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Anr. reported in (2015)11 SCC 769. Submission is that in the said

case also vague and general allegations were made by the complainant

against her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-

law i.e. the entire family of torturing and humiliating the complainant,

but on consideration of the allegations the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

paragraph 17 held as under:-

“We have carefully perused the allegations pointed
out by the learned counsel, from the complaint of
Respondent 2 Hima Pritam Sadaphule, dated 4-2-

2010. There can be no doubt whatsoever, that the
allegations leveled against Appellants 2 to 5 do not
justify any inference, which would lead to the
conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49936 of 2014 dt.08-11-2017

5/6

offence in the nature of Section 498-A of the Penal
Code. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied
in accepting the prayer made in the instant appeal,
with reference to Appellants 2 to 5, and to order
quashing of the first informant report dated 6-3-2010,
and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom,
including the charge-sheet dated 27-7-2010.”

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the

complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that in the case of

Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. Ors. reported in (2015) 11

SCC 260, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not that all

the cases against the relatives of the husband are to be quashed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions at the bar. A

perusal of the complaint petition clearly shows that so far as the

allegations against the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the same are

specific and in fact whole thrust of the allegations are against the

petitioner no.1. The allegations made against the petitioner nos.2 and

3 are only vague and general without giving a single instance of any

act or omission which may show active participation of the petitioner

nos.2 and 3 in commission of any act of torture so as to constitute an

offence within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

There is no whisper of allegations against mother-in-law whereas

allegations against father-in-law are also vague and no inference may
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49936 of 2014 dt.08-11-2017

6/6

be drawn against them. Marriage is of the year 2005, husband of the

complainant is employed in railway and the allegations of demand as

also torture are against him. This Court agrees with the submission of

learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 have

been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the

order taking cognizance and issuance of summons as against the

petitioner nos.2 and 3 cannot sustain and the same is hereby set aside

against them. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, since thrust of the

allegations are against him, this Court is not persuaded to quash the

order taking cognizance and issuance of summon against the

petitioner no.1.

8. The application is, thus, partly allowed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

Arvind/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.11.2017
Transmission 13.11.2017
Date