IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43999 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2012 Thana- PHULWARI District- Patna

1. Arun Kumar Singh Son of Sri Shardanand Singh

2. Shardanand Singh Son of Late Banarasi Rai

3. Vidyarthi Devi Wife of Sri Shardanand Singh All resident of
Vidyarthi Sadan, Chitragupt Nagar, Road No.-9, Takiapar, P.S.-
Danapur, District- Patna

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rubi Kumari Wife of Sri Arun Kumar Singh, D/o Sri Dhuman Rai resident of
Naya Tola, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Azad
For the State : Mr. Dr. Rabindra Kumar APP
For the Opp. Party no.2 : Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad Adv.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel

for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

for quashing the order dated 20.04.2014 passed by Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case no. 264

of 2012, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance

against the petitioners under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and

Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

petitioner no.1 has performed second marriage with opposite

party No.2 after the death of his first wife. The opposite party
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43999 of 2014 dt.13-07-2018
2/5

no.2 after marriage did not live properly with him to lead

conjugal life on account of which he felt cruelty and also filed a

case for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It

is further pointed out that petitioners have never committed

torture with the opposite party no.2 for demand of dowry.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party

no.2, has submitted that petitioners have tortured the opposite

party no.2 for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry as well as

ousted her from the matrimonial house. It is further submitted

that Divorce case filed by the petitioner no.1 vide Matrimonial

(Divorce )case no. 182 of 2011 has been dismissed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna vide judgment dated

28.05. 2014.

From perusal of the complaint petition, which was sent to

police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it appears that

marriage of opposite party no.2 with petitioner no.1 was

solemnized on 11th of March, 2011 in Shiv Temple. After

marriage she went to her matrimonial house where she was

tortured by husband including other in-laws for demand of Rs.

one lac cash, motorcycle and one golden Chain. It further

appears that when father of the opposite party no.2 came to

meet her in her matrimonial house accused persons told him to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43999 of 2014 dt.13-07-2018
3/5

take away opposite party no.2. Thereafter, she came to her

Naihar with her father. It is further alleged that accused persons

kept her valuable articles as mentioned in the FIR in the

matrimonial house and after some days her husband talked her

on telephone to bring Rs. one lac and gold worth two bhar.

Thereafter, she will be permitted to live in the matrimonial

house with him.

The Complaint case was sent to the police station under

Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. in which the police after investigation

submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. The learned

Court below on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the

police took cognizance against all the petitioners .

This Court, after looking into the allegation in the

complaint which was sent to the police station under Section

156(3) Cr. P.C., finds that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-

law and mother -in-law of opposite party no.2. There is general

and omnibus allegation against them. It has been submitted that

petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have no concern between the affairs of

the wife (opposite party no.2) and petitioner no.1. Petitioner

no.1 has performed second marriage with opposite party no.2

in the temple after death of his first wife. These petitioners have

no concern with the affairs between opposite party no.2 and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43999 of 2014 dt.13-07-2018
4/5

petitioner no.1.

It is consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that

continuance of criminal proceeding involving all the family

members of husband when FIR does not disclose specific

allegation against them will be abuse of the legal and judicial

process. In the case reported in PLJR 2013(1) SCC 10 ( Geeta

Mehrotra Anr. Vs. The state of U.P. Anr.), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that mere casual reference of names of

family members in a matrimonial dispute without any allegation

of their active involvement in the offence is not sufficient for

taking cognizance, moreso, when tendency is to rope entire

family members in matrimonial disputes; the proceeding, is

liable to be quashed.

In complaint petition, there is general and omnibus

allegation against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who are father-in-law

and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2. There is no any

allegation of specific overt act against them. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that that continuance of the criminal

proceeding against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 will be mere

harassment to them and abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2014

passed by J.M.Ist Class, Patna in Phulwari Sharif P.S. case no.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43999 of 2014 dt.13-07-2018
5/5

264 of 2012 along with entire criminal prosecution with respect

to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

So far as petitioner no.1, who is husband of the opposite

party no.2 is concerned, this Court does not find any illegality in

the impugned order with respect to him.

Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. petition is dismissed with

respect to petitioner no.1.The Court below will proceed in the

case against petitioner no.1 in accordance with law.

Petitioner no.1 is given liberty to raise all the points as

raised in the present application, at the time of framing of

charge, which will be considered and disposed off by the

learned Court below in accordance with law without being

prejudiced by this order .

This application is, accordingly, allowed in part.

(Sanjay Priya, J)
shyambihari/-

AFR/AFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20/07/2018
Transmission Date 20/07/2018