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