SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jaipal Marandi And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 2 September, 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2013 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura

1. Jaipal Marandi S/o Late Kanhu Marandi

2. Singa Devi@ Manjhli Devi W/o Jaipal Marandi

3. Rakesh Marandi @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Jaipal Marandi

4. Jageshwar Marandi S/o Late Kanhu Marandi.

5. Jayram Marandi @ Jay Kishore Marandi s/o Late Kanhu Marandi,
All resident of Village- Narhatari, P.s- Phulidumar, District- Banka.

6. Sumar Lata Marandi D/o Jaipal Marandi, W/o Prithavi Chand Murmu

7. Prithavi Chand Murmu S/o Late Wishwnath Murmu Both r/o Village-

Narayandhih, P.S- Chandandan, Distt- Banka.

8. Saloni Marandi @ Saloni Devi D/o jaipal Marandi W/o Munilal Soren

9. Munilal Soren S/o Babulal Soren r/o Village- Baratarh, P.S. and Distt.-


… … Petitioner/s

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Nilam Kumari D/o Ganesh Hembrat resident of Mohalla- Makdumpur in
front of Training School , P. S- Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP

Date : 02-09-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. No one

appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 withdrew their prayer.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13418 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019

Hence, their prayer stood dismissed as withdrawn by order

dated 20.06.2019.

3. The petitioners are relations of the husband of

Opposite Party No.2. They have challenged the order of

cognizance dated 12.01.2015 passed in Sheikhpura Mahila P.S.

Case No.22 of 2013 whereby the learned Court-below has taken

cognizance against the husband of Opposite Party No.2 and

others including the petitioners for offences under Sections

494/Section498A/Section504/Section506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Contention is that the real dispute is between the

husband and the wife, for the reason that the wife suspects that

the husband is carrying extra-marital relation; rather she has

alleged that husband has entered a second marriage. However,

allegation against the petitioners is general and omnibus of

demand of dowry and torture for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed

reliance on the case of SectionPreeti Gupta and another V. State of

Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submits that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed concern on rapid increase

of the matrimonial litigation especially the cases under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and over implication in large

number of cases after deliberations. The present case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13418 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019

also an example of over implication with general and omnibus

allegation. As such, criminal prosecution of the petitioners

amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The real

dispute is of temperamental compatibility between the spouse.

6. Petitioner No.3 Rakesh Marandi is the younger

brother of the husband of Opposite Party No.2. Petitioner No.4

Jageshwar Marandi and Petitiioner No.5 Jayram Marandi @ Jay

Kishore Marandi are cousin of the father-in-law of Opposite

Party No.2. Petitioner No.6 Sumar Lata Marandi and petitioner

No.8 Saloni Marandi @ Saloni Devi are married sisters of the

husband of Opposite Party No.2 and they are married with

petitioner No.7 Prithvi Chand Murmu and Petitioner No.9

Munilal Soren and they have stated on oath that since marriage

they are living along with husband and not in the house and

family of Opposite Party No.2. The cousins are also separate

from them. No prior complaint is there against the aforesaid

petitioners of demand of dowry and torture for the same nor

there is any material on the record to substantiate that they are

still having connection with the family of the husband of

Opposite Party No.2.

7. On careful consideration of the averments in the

FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13418 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019

during investigation, I find that there is no specific attribution

against any of the petitioners; rather there is general and

omnibus allegation of illegal demand of dowry and torture for

the same against husband and the entire family including the

petitioners. Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti

Gupta’s case (supra) is being reproduced below:

“35. The ultimate object of

justice is to find out the truth and punish the

guilty and protect the innocent. To find out

the truth is a herculean task in majority of

these complaints. The tendency of implicating

the husband and all his immediate relations

is also not uncommon. At times, even after

the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult

to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to

be extremely careful and cautious in dealing

with these complaints and must take

pragmatic realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial cases. The

allegations of harassment of husband’s close

relations who had been living in different

cities and never visited or rarely visited the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13418 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019

place where the complainant resided would

have an entirely different complexion. The

allegations of the complainant are required to

be scrutinized with great care and


36. Experience reveals that long

and protracted criminal trials lead to

rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the

relationship amongst the parties. It is also a

matter of common knowledge that in cases

filed by the complainant if the husband or the

husband’s relations had to remain in jail even

for a few days, it would ruin the chances of

an amicable settlement altogether. The

process of suffering is extremely long and

painful. “

8. Evidently, the attribution against the petitioners

are general and omnibus and appears to be the result of

deliberate over implication. As such, criminal prosecution of the

petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court, which cannot

be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order and entire

criminal prosecution stands quashed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13418 of 2015 dt.02-09-2019

7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Uploading Date 05.09.2019
Transmission Date 05.09.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation