IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30720 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -412 Year- 2013 Thana -M ADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District-
MADHUBANI
1. Anjani Kumar Choudhary @ Anjani Kumar S/o Sri Sukhdeo Choudhary @
Sukhdeo Jha Resident of Village- Koilakh, P.S.- Raj Nagar, District-
Madhubani
2. Rina Choudhary W/o Shri Anjani Choudhary Resident of Village- Koilakh,
P.S.- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rupa Kumari W/o Amit Jha, Resident of Village- Zarai, P.S.- Arer, District-
Madhubani D/o Shri Bab Saheb Jha, Village – Damodarpur, P.S.-Benipatti,
District-Madhubani.
…. …. Opposite Parties
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sakhuja, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 03-08-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the cognizance order
dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Madhubani in T.R. 2946 of 2013 whereby the learned Lower Court
finding prima facie case against the accused persons, namely,
Amitabh Jha, Ugradeo Jha, Aparna Jha, Sadhna Jha, Anjani
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
2/7
Choudhary and Rina Choudhary under Section 498A/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and against the accused Jitendra Jha under Sections
498A/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ordered to issue summon
against them.
3. Opposite party no.2-complainant filed Complaint
Case No. 412 of 2013 against the aforesaid accused persons and
Snehta under Sections 323, 379, 307, 498A, 406, 494, 376 and
377/34 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation in succinct that
marriage of the complainant was performed with accused No.1
Amitabh Jha on 24.06.2010. After marriage, all the accused persons
demanded Rs. 15 lacs blaming her not looking smart and on failure
to cough up the aforesaid demand by her parents subjected her to
various sorts of torture. On intervention of her father, relatives and
punches, her husband took her to Bhopal where she learnt that her
husband had performed second marriage with accused Snehta. On
grilling her husband about the same, he thrashed her for which she
filed complaint Case No. 233 of 2012 at Police Centre Piplati, but
subsequently her husband was enlarged on bail on the basis of
compromise. Even after bail of her husband on the basis of
compromise, there was no change in the attitude of her husband. He
continued to relish extra marital affairs with aforesaid Snehta. On the
occasion of Holi, she arrived at her marital house. Initially her in-
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
3/7
laws did not allow her to enter into the house, but anyhow she
entered into the house due to intervention of the villagers and when
she demanded her ornaments, etc. from the accused persons, they
refused to accord the same to her and demanded a car in dowry. On
05.04.2013, all the accused persons barring Jitendra Jha and Sadhna
Jha tried to eliminate her, but she was saved by the passerby.
Subsequently, said Jitendra Jha and Sadhna Jha took her with them at
Madhubani and kept her in a hotel where they subjected her to rape
and unnatural sex by administering her liquor and intoxicating
substance. Anyhow, she escaped from the hotel and arrived at the
house of her relative Hemant Jha. She was got treated in the Primary
Health Centre, Rahika and from there her father and uncle took her to
her maternal house.
4. During the course of enquiry, complainant examined
herself on solemn affirmation and her three witnesses. After pursing
the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant and
evidence of the witnesses and considering the materials available on
record, learned Magistrate finding prima facie case against the
accused persons, namely, Amitabh Jha, Ugradeo Jha, Aparna Jha,
Sadhna Jha, Anjani Choudhary and Rina Choudhary under Section
498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and against the accused Jitendra
Jha under Sections 498A/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
4/7
ordered to issue summon against them vide the impugned order.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioner no.1 Anjani Kumar Choudhary happens to be
brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 Rina Choudhary married sister-in-
law of the complainant. They are living separately at Delhi since
before the marriage. Petitioner no.1 is a practicing lawyer at Delhi
and on 05.04.2013, he was present in the court at Delhi. They neither
made any demand of dowry nor ever subjected the complainant to
any sorts of torture and they have no concern with the aforesaid
occurrence. There is no allegation under Sections 494, 376 and
377/34 against the petitioners. The only allegation against the
petitioners is of marking demand of dowry and subjecting the
complainant to torture due to not coughing of the said demand. The
aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioners is general and
omnibus in nature. There is no specific allegation of making any
dowry demand and subjecting the complainant to any sorts of torture
against them. Hence, the cognizance taken against the petitioners
vide impugned order is nothing but the abuse of process of the court.
Petitioners filed some documents in substantiation of their case.
6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the
petitioner no.1 Anjani Kumar Choudhary happens to be brother-in-
law and petitioner no.2 Rina Choudhary married sister-in-law of the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
5/7
complainant. It is admitted to the parties that the petitioners are living
separately at Delhi. From perusal of the record, it appears that there
is no specific and clear allegation of making any dowry demand and
subjecting the complainant to any sort of torture against the
petitioners rather aforesaid allegations are vague and omnibus and in
my considered opinion that would not be sufficient to put them on
trial.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and
Another vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2012)10 SCC
741 and Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 has been pleased to rule that
there should be a clear allegation against relatives of the husband and
vague and omnibus allegation would not be sufficient to compel
them to undergo agony of the trial.
8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Monju Roy and Others Vs.
State of West Bengal reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693 has been
pleased to observe that while we do not find any ground to interfere
with the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was
subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry
demand, we do not find any merit in the submission that possibility
of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not
ruled out”. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
6/7
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has been pleased to observe that a
tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which,
if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even
against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek
conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which
ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real
accused as appears to have happened in the instant case. Hon’ble
Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has been pleased to observe that there
is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-
A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives.
The fact that Section 498A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions
that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested
under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden
grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living
abroad for decades are arrested. In the said case, the Supreme Court
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.30720 of 2013 dt.03-08-2018
7/7
has cautioned the courts with regard to proceeding against in-laws
and distant relatives of the husband of the wife involved in the
offence under Section 498A of the IPC and other relevant offences.
This High Court in Brijesh Das @ Brijesh Kumar Das Ors. Vs.
The State of Bihar Anr. reported in 2012(2) PLJR 545 has also
held that there is specific allegation made against husband and no
statement that other relatives assaulted the complainant. Allegations
made against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are vague and omnibus allegation
made against the relatives of the husband, would not be sufficient to
put them on a trial and set aside the cognizance order against the
petitioner nos. 2 to 6 who happen to be in-laws of the complaint.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the aforesaid case laws, aforesaid cognizance order taken
against the petitioners is quashed and this quashing petition is
allowed accordingly.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
Mishra/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 08.08.2018
Transmission 08.08.2018
Date