—
Patna High Court
Minu Singh And Anr vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … on 22 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2790 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2790 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
1. Minu Singh, W/o Late Ashok Singh,
2. Gaurav Singh S/o Late Ashok Singh, Both R/o B/178, P.C. Colony,
Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat
2. Shalini Kumari Singh @ Shalini Singh, W/o Saurav Singh, R/o Mohalla-
P.O. P.S. – Lohia Agar, Mount Carmel High School , Kankarbagh, Patna-20,
presetly residing at A-12, Ashiyana Nagar-1, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, District-
Patna.
… … Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-03-2024
1. The petitioners have invoked the constitutional
writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for quashing of the order
of cognizance and all subsequent proceedings, in connection
with Complaint Case No. 2790 (C) of 2016.
2. The petitioners are the mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2, who are facing trial
for commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC read
with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. It is not in dispute that marriage of the Opposite
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
2/10
Party No. 2 was solemnized on 24th of May, 2013 with one
Gaurav Singh, another son of the Petitioner No. 1. The Opposite
Party No. 2, being the wife of Gaurav Singh, lodged a Court
complaint on 27th of August, 2016, stating, inter alia, that she
was treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home by the
petitioners. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 in her
complaint that at the time of marriage, her father spent, in all, a
sum of Rs. 45 lakhs. Out of the said 45 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 20
lakhs was paid to the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 for her
further studies. But the petitioners as well as the husband of the
complainant tried to grab the said money. On much pursuation,
the said amount of 20 lakhs was deposited in the bank account
of the complainant in the month of December, 2013. Thereafter,
the accused persons/petitioners and her husband pressurized her
to bring a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs from his father, saying that such
amount was spent by the accused persons in her marriage with
one of the sons the Petitioner No. 1. In the meantime, the
petitioner became pregnant. The accused persons constantly put
her in mental torture to abort the baby in her own womb. She
denied to such illegal and immoral proposal of the petitioners.
Somehow, she managed to bear the torture. At times, she was
thinking to commit suicide. However, in the matrimonial home,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
3/10
she was helped by her sister-in-law (wife of the Petitioner
No.2), Namita Singh and as she stood by her side like a rock,
the petitioner was able to give birth to a male child on 27 th
November, 2014. Subsequently, the complainant was thrown out
of her house on 29th of July, 2016. She returned to her parental
home at Ashina Nagar. It was also submitted by the complainant
that the mother-in-law, the complainant, snatched away all her
gold articles, cloths and other valuables from her possession.
4. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that
the father of the Petitioner No. 2 and husband of Petitioner No.
1 established educational institutions in Patna and Gaya. The
educational institutions established by the husband of Petitioner
No. 1, Ashok Singh flourished a lot. After death of Ashok Singh,
the Petitioner No. 1 was looking after the management of the
said academic institutions. The said academic institutions in
Patna and Gaya were recognized by the general people as good
academic institutions. The Petitioner No.1 has substantial
earning from the said academic institutions. After marriage of
the son of the Petitioner No.1, Gaurav Singh with the
complainant, the petitioner from the very beginning had greedy
eye over the family property. She, with the help of her sister-in-
law, i.e., the wife of the Petitioner No. 2, namely, Namita Singh
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
4/10
tried to grab the said property and insisted upon their husbands
to transfer into them their shares in the property. When the
petitioners denied to accept such proposal of the complainant,
she has lodged the complaint with absolutely false allegation.
5. The complainant came to know from some
unknown sources that the petitioners would sell their joint
family properties. So, she filed a suit for partition in the name of
her minor son, which is registered as T.P.S. 129 of 2016 in the
competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
the complainant joined hands with Namita Singh to disturb the
family affairs by claiming separate share in the income coming
from the educational institutions, although, they never extended
any help to the development of such institutions. The
development of the institution was done singularly by the
Petitioner No. 1 and whatever be the earnings through the
educational institutions is the self-acquired property of the
Petitioner No. 1. The complainant started all sorts of problem in
the family after the death of Ashok Singh, the husband of the
Petitioner No. 1 and the father of the petitioner no. 2. In the
absence of Ashok Singh, the father of the complainant, Raj
Kishore Rai and one of his relatives, namely, Yuvraj Singh tried
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
5/10
to intrude upon the family affairs of the petitioners. They also
threatened the Petitioner No. 1 that they would not allow her to
run the school business.
7. When all such problems cropped up after the
death of the aforesaid Ashok Singh, the husband of the
complainant made an informatory statement before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was registered as
Information Petition No. 3356 of 2015. The husband of the
complainant also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna, which was registered as
Matrimonial Case No. 87 of 2016 on 23rd of January, 2016.
After filing of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the
petitioner filed the Complaint Case No. 2790(C) of 2016 in
which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna
took cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 4 th of February, 2017
against the petitioners and one Gaurav Singh, husband of the
complainant.
8. In spite of service of notice, the Complainant /
Respondent No. 2 did not appear to contest the instant writ
petition.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
6/10
9. I have heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioners and the learned Advocate on behalf of the State of
Bihar.
10. Having heard the learned counsels and on
careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it appears to
this Court that the grievance of the complainant against the
petitioners are three folds :-
(i) The petitioners had kept a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs
which was given by her father for her further studies. However,
the complainant herself admitted that the said amount was
deposited in her bank account in the month of December, 2013;
(ii) The complainant made her grievance regarding
mental torture, alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner No. 1
made allegations about her character and sometimes in August,
2013, the accused persons demanded dowry of Rs. 20 lakhs.
Except an omnibus and vague allegation, as stated above, the
complainant did not make any substantial complaint,
mentioning the date, time and the specific words allegedly used
by the Petitioner No. 1, making allegation against her character
and demand of Rs. 20 lakhs.
(iii) The accused persons insisted upon her to abort
her baby in her womb. Here also, the allegation is omnibus
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
7/10
because of the fact that except the general allegation, the
complainant did not specify the date, time and manner, by which
the accused persons allegedly insisted upon her to abort her
baby.
11. Explanation to Section 498A IPC defines
“Cruelty”.
“Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A means:-
“(a) any wilful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
12. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 177, it is held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that in any event the willful act or
conduct within the meaning of explanation (a) to Section 498A
ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the
charge under Section 498A and not de hors the same. An
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
8/10
allegation by the wife that due to torture she was thinking to
commit suicide is not in a “to have an event sometime back
cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of the matter of a
charge under Section 498A”. In the instant case, the
complainant did not come forward with any factual incident
proximate to the filing of the complaint, alleging that such
willful conduct by the accused persons was likely to drive the
complainant to commit suicide.
13. Section 498A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives to harass and torture the
wife to coerce or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. The complainant stated that the petitioners demanded a
sum of Rs. 20 lakhs from her father. The date and time of such
demand has not been stated by the complainant in her
complaint.
14. The legislative intent is clear to indicate in
particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be
a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning
of explanation (b).
15. On the other hand, it is found from the record
that the bone of contention between the parties is having the
share in the family property of the accused persons. The
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
9/10
petitioners in her suit for partition mentioned the worth of
family property of the petitioners as Rs. 121 crores in order to
get the share in family property. The dispute cropped up
between the parties. The complainant used to put pressure upon
her husband and similarly Namita Singh, the wife of Petitioner
No. 2 used to insist upon her husband to transfer their share in
the family property in their names. The entire dispute cropped
up when the petitioners did not want to part with the joint family
property and joint family business.
16. In Ritu Tomar vs. State of U.P Ors., reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 473, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
the factual background that the complaint filed under Section
498A of the IPC was the result of family dispute between the
members of family of the complainant and the accused persons,
was pleased to quash the complaint under Section 498A of the
IPC, which was registered under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
17. Having gone through the entire facts and
circumstances and materials in record, it appears to this Court
that the criminal proceeding being Complaint Case No. 2790
(C) of 2016 is manifestly attended with mala fide and the
proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with view to spite
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2790 of 2017 dt.22-03-2024
10/10
them due to private and personal grudge. In the instant case, it is
sufficiently established that the complainant has lodged the
complaint for the purpose of getting the share in the family
property. The allegations levelled by her on the petition of
complaint does not suggest any offence within the meaning
Section 498A of the IPC.
18. The allegation of keeping the ornaments and
other personal belongings of the complainant by Petitioner No.
1 has also no leg to stand because the trial Court itself did not
take any cognizance under Section 406 of the IPC.
19. For the reasons stated above, I do not have any
other alternative but to quash the criminal proceeding arising
out of Complaint Case No. 2790 (C) of 2016 against the present
petitioners.
20. The instant writ petition thus allowed on
contest.
21. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-skm
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 06.03.2024
Uploading Date 22.03.2024
Transmission Date 22.03.2024
