SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Urmila Devi @ Urmila Jha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 17 November, 2017

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

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

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


(Arun Kumar, J.)

Uploading Date 22.11.2017
Transmission 22.11.2017

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.


Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation