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