IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34805 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2013 Thana -COM PLAINT CASE District- JAMUI
1. Urmila Devi @ Urmila Jha W/o Yadu Nandan Jha
2. Yadu Nandan Jha S/o Late Jag Mohan Jha
3. Rakesh Kumar Jha S/o Yadu Nandan Jha All Resident of Village Manikpur,
P.S. Tarapur, District Munger.
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Poonam Jha D/o Dayanand Jha, W/o Rakesh Kumar Jha Resident of Village
Manikpur, P.S. Tarapur, District Munger at present Village Gidhour, P.S.
Gidhour, District Jamui (Bihar).
…. …. Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Roshan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar-I, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-11-2017
The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order
dated 16.08.2013, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jamui in Complaint
Case No.81(C) of 2013 thereby taking cognizance of the offence
under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. A brief fact giving rise to the case is that complainant
Poonam Jha, opposite party no.2, was married with Rakesh Kumar
Jha, petitioner no.3, on 17.06.2005. In marriage dowry was given by
complainant’s father but just after three days of the solemnization of
the marriage, again the in-laws started reiterating further demand of
dowry and also started torturing, so she went back to her parents’
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34805 of 2014 dt.17-11-2017
2 /3
home, again returned back. The accused persons after coming back
started torturing her, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law kept all her
jewelleries and the complainant has filed the case of maintenance in
the family court and case under the Domestic Violence Act too.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos.1 and 2, the mother-in-law and father-in-law are old
persons, father-in-law is a retired school teacher whereas the husband
is in Indian Navy and even after going through the entire allegation
levelled in the complaint, there is no specific allegation of any
demand of dowry by the petitioners at least by the father-in-law and
mother-in-law and if any kind of torture is mentioned except the
sweeping remark of torturing. Learned counsel for the petitioner
places reliance in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.,
reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 10(SC) and also in the case of Preeti
Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 36(SC).
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is
general allegation against father-in-law and mother-in-law too, so a
prima facie case is also made out against them.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal
of the record, the Court finds that allegation against petitioner nos.1
and 2, mother-in-law and father-in-law are general and omnibus. Only
bald statement of making demand of dowry and torture is made, no
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34805 of 2014 dt.17-11-2017
3 /3
specific date of torture or manner of torture is mentioned in the
complaint. Now a days it is general tendency to implicate all family
members however complaint itself does not disclose any specific
allegation against petitioner nos.1 and 2 except casual reference, so
continuation of the criminal proceeding against these two petitioners
would be abuse of the process of the court, therefore, the criminal
proceeding inclusive of cognizance order dated 16.08.2013, passed in
Complaint Case No.81(C) of 2013 pending in the court of S.D.J.M.,
Jamui is hereby set aside only with respect to petitioner nos.1 and 2,
namely, Urmila Devi @ Urmila Jha and Yadu Nandan Jha.
Howsoever, as far as the case of petitioner no.3, Rakesh Kumar Jha is
concerned, the allegation is specific against him, so the criminal
proceeding against petitioner no.3 will continue.
6. Accordingly, the quashing application stands disposed
of.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.11.2017
Transmission 22.11.2017
Date