SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kumari Priya Gupta @ Priya Gupta @ … vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 16 July, 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2013 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-

1. Kumari Priya Gupta @ Priya Gupta @ Dimple Kumari, daughter of Sri
Harish Chandra Gupta @ Kanhaiya,

2. Sangita Gupta @ Neetu Kumari, daughter of Sri Harish Chandra Gupta @

3. Usha Gupta, wife of Sri Harish Chandra Gupta @ Kanhaiya

4. Harish Chandra Gupta @ Kanhaiya, son of Vishwanath Prasad Gupta, All
resident of Village and Post – Bankeyganj, P.S. – Mailani, District –
Lakhimpur Khiri, Uttar Pradesh.

… … Petitioners

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Devi @ Rimmi Devi, daughter of Late Rajendra Prasad, Village –

Itadhi, P.S. – Itadhi, District – Buxar.

… … Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S. D. Singh Yadav, APP

Date : 16-07-2019

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are relations of the husband, in the sense

that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are sisters of the husband and petitioner

no. 3 and 4 are parents of the husband of opposite party no. 2. The

allegation is general and omnibus of demand of dowry and torture

for the same. Husband is also an accused in the case but he is not a

petitioner herein, rather it has been informed that application for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19149 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019

quashing of cognizance order filed by the husband, vide Cr. Misc.

No. 18367 of 2014, has already been dismissed, on 10.12.2014, by

a Bench of this Court.

3. The petitioners have sought for quashment of

cognizance order dated 07.08.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.

417(C) of 2013 whereby cognizance has been taken for offences

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and Section4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The prayer is on the ground that since recent past

tendency is growing to implicate as many family members as are

there whenever a matrimonial dispute arises between the spouse in

a family and this fact was taken note of even by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SectionGeeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P.

and Another as well as in SectionPreeti Gupta and Another vs. State of

Jharkhand and Another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363.

Different Coordinate Benches of this Court have followed the

judicial precedent aforesaid in the matter of quashment of criminal

proceeding against the in-laws where the allegation was found

general and omnibus and the facts and circumstances depicted a

case of malicious prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn

attention of the Court that in the complaint petition, it is stated that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19149 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019

the complainant was finally expelled out from the matrimonial

house on 20.04.2013, whereas the prescription of the Doctor dated

20.04.2013 and pathological report would reveal that she was

getting treatment and husband of the complainant was attending

her treatment. Annexure-5 has been referred to substantiate the

aforesaid assertion.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party

no. 2 submits that complaint petition prima facie discloses

commission of cognizance offence and at this stage, the impugned

order need not be interfered with because in depth appreciation of

evidence and trustworthiness of the prosecution case cannot be

examined at this stage.

7. SectionIn Shiv Jee Rai vs. The State of Bihar Anr.

reported in 2013(3) PLJR 139 and again in SectionAjay Kumar

Chaudhary Ors. vs. The State of Bihar Anr. reported in

2014(3) PLJR 263, this Court had occasioned to examine identical

issue of quashment of FIR of the in-laws. In para 7 of Shiv Jee

Rai’s case (supra), a Bench of this Court observed as follows:-

“7. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in
a large number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication has become affair of the day that has
been noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of SectionPreeti Gupta and Another vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19149 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019

3363 [ : 2010(4) PLJR (SC)36] and recently the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2012 in the case
of SectionGeeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of U.P.
and Another* passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1674
of 2012 in paragraph nos. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 27
where in the similar fact and situation the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that now it became
tendency in general to rope all the family members
in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code in order to (sic) undue harassment to the
family members. It will be appropriate to quote
paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment
in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) :–

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are
not properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,
agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.

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 the 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 place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19149 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019

required to be scrutinised with great care and

8. Likewise, in para 12 of the judgment of Ajay Kumar

Chaudhary’s case (supra), the Court observed as follows:

“12. The Apex Court, in the case of SectionG.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad and Others, reported in (2000)3 SCC
693, has deprecated the deliberate implication of
entire family members of the husband. Paragraph
No. 12 of the judgment is as under:–

“There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which the elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused
in the criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mental
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different Courts.”

9. The record reveals that the allegation is general and

omnibus against the petitioners. The chances of false implication

of the relations of the husband cannot be completely ruled out in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19149 of 2015 dt.16-07-2019

the present facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, in my

view, the impugned order is not sustainable in law so far the

petitioners are concerned in view of the settled proposition of law

that in absence of specific allegation against in-laws, prosecution

amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the impugned

order and the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners

stands quashed and this application is allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)


Uploading Date 21.07.2019
Transmission Date 21.07.2019

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 © 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