SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aruna Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 March, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10113 of 2017
Arising Out of Complaint .Case No. -703 Year- 2016 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE
District- PATNA

1. Aruna Devi, Wife of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

2. Manohar Prasad, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad.

3. Anita Verma, Wife of Manohar Prasad Verma.

4. Prahlad Prasad Verma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

5. Babita Kumari, Wife of Prahlad Prasad Verma.

6. Deo Kumar Verma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

7. Sunita Verma, Wife of Deo Prasad Verma.

8. Vimal Kumar Verma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

9. Rishi Verma @ Rishi Kumar, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

10. Rohit @ Munna Verma, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.

11. Lalita Kumari, Daughter of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Verma.
All are Resident of Village/Mohalla + P.S.- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Punam Verma, Wife of Jay Kumar Verma, Resident of Village/Mohalla+ P.S.-
Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-03-2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.10113 of 2017 dt.09-03-2018
2

counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2, who has appeared

suo motu.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) has been filed by the

petitioners for quashing the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Complaint

Case No.703C of 2016 by which he has summoned the petitioners

to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. In the complaint petition, the

complainant-opposite party no.2 has alleged that she was married to

Jay Kumar Verma on 28.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs.

Her father had given Rs.8,00,000/- in cash and gifts worth

Rs.1,75,000/- to said Jay Kumar Verma. After marriage, she was

taken to her sasural where she was kept well for 2-3 days and,

thereafter, she was asked to make a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and a

motorcycle from her parents. On refusal, she was subjected to

cruelty by her husband and his relatives. Ultimately, on 02.06.2015,

she was ousted from her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of

the alleged demand. Thereafter, she came back to her parents’

house. A panchayati was held on 04.08.2016, but the accused

persons refused to keep the complainant in her matrimonial home
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.10113 of 2017 dt.09-03-2018
3

unless the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and motorcycle is fulfilled.

4. The complainant was examined on solemn

affirmation and apart from her, three more witnesses were

examined in course of inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the

Cr. P.C. whereafter the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate

vide impugned order dated 02.01.2017 summoned the petitioners to

face trial.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Devendra Kumar

Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that in

the present case there is no specific allegation of any overt act

against the petitioners who are relatives of the husband of the

complainant. He submitted that only a vague allegation against

them has been made in the complaint that all the accused persons

subjected the complainant to cruelty. He submitted that the entire

allegations made in the complaint so far as the petitioners are

concerned are false. Even in the complaint, the complainant has

stated that cash and gift was given to accused no.1, who is husband

of the complainant at the time of marriage. According to him, the

entire dispute arose due to incompatibility between the husband and

wife with which the petitioners have no concern.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for the complainant submitted that the allegations made in the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.10113 of 2017 dt.09-03-2018
4

complaint clearly attract ingredients of the offences punishable

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. He submitted that the complainant has

clearly stated that not only the husband, but all the accused persons

demanded dowry and for non-fulfilment of the same, she was

subjected to cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial home. He

submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the

petitioners to face trial and it would not be proper to interdict the

criminal proceeding at the initial stage.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

8. Petitioner no.1, namely, Aruna Devi is

mother-in-law, petitioner nos.2, 5 and 6, namely, Manohar Prasad,

Prahlad Prasad, Deo Kumar Verma are brothers-in-law (Bhaisurs),

petitioner nos.3, 5 and 7, namely, Anita Verma, Babita Verma,

Sunita Verma are sisters-in-law (Gotani), petitioner nos.8, 9 and 10,

namely, Vimal Kumar Verma, Rishi Verma @ Rishi Kumar, Rohit

@ Munna Verma are brothers-in-law (Dewars) and petitioner no.10

namely, Lalita Kumari is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant.

Except their names being mentioned in the complaint in the column

of accused, there is no specific allegation against anyone of them.

Only a casual reference has been made in the complaint that all the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.10113 of 2017 dt.09-03-2018
5

accused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty and asked her

to make demand and cash and motorcycle from her parents.

9. In Gita Mehrotra and Ors. vs. State of U.P.

and Anr. [(2013) 1 PLJR 10 (SC)], the Supreme Court quashed

the proceedings initiated against the appellants who were sister and

brother of the complainant’s husband holding therein that there was

no allegations against them except casual reference of their names

being included in the FIR. The Supreme Court held that mere

casual reference of the names of the family members in a

matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the

matter would not justify taking cognizance against them

overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency

to involve the entire family members of the household in the

domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it

happens soon after the wedding.

10. Considering the nature of allegation made in

the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded in course of

inquiry, I deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the

proceedings initiated against the petitioners who are all relatives of

the husband and whose names have been given in the body of the

complainant without there being any specific allegation made

against them of being involved in physical and mental torture of the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.10113 of 2017 dt.09-03-2018
6

complainant.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

02.01.2017 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Patna City in Complaint Case No.703C of 2016 is

quashed and set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

12. The application stands allowed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.03.2018
Transmission 10.03.2018
Date

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh