SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prabhavati Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 26 March, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12352 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -283 Year- 2016 Thana -M AHILA P.S. District- BHOJPUR

1. Prabhavati Devi (mother- in- law), wife of Braj Kishore Sharma @ Brij Kishore
Sharma.

2. Brij Kishor Sharma @ Braj Kishore Sharma (Father -in- law), Son of Late Ra m
Sakal Sharma.

3. Rinki Devi (married nanad), Wife of Pramod Singh.

4. Ritesh Kumar Sharma @ Bablu Sharma (Dewar), Son of Braj Kishore Sharma.

5. Rocky Sharma @ Rakesh Sharma (Dewar),
All are resident of Village- Karbasin, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur.

6. Pramod Singh (Nanad’s husband), Son of Sukha Nandan Singh, Resident of
Village- Kothiar, District- Bhojpur.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Avantika Ray Sharma @ Puja Daughter of Vidya Prakash Ray, Resident o f
Village- Vishnu Nagar, P.S. Nawada, District- Bhojpur.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : None
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-03-2018

This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the

order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.12352 of 2017 dt.26-03-2018
2

Magistrate, Ara in Ara Mahila P.S. Case No.283 of 2016 by which

cognizance has been taken for the offences inter alia under Sections

341, 323, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and the petitioners have been summoned to

face trial.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners are in-laws and there is omnibus and

general allegation made in the first information report against them.

He submitted that the genesis of institution of the first information

report is matrimonial discord and incompatibility between the

informant and her husband. The implication of the relatives of the

husband is just in order to coerce the blackmail. He submitted that in

an identical circumstance, the Supreme court in the matter of Geeta

Mehrotra Anr. vs. State of U.P. Anr. [(2013) 1 PLJR

11(SC)] quashed the proceeding instituted against them. In the said

case, the Supreme Court clearly held that mere casual reference of

name of family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation

of their active involvement in the offence is not sufficient for taking

cognizance.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor contested the matter. He

submitted that the case of the petitioners is quite different from the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.12352 of 2017 dt.26-03-2018
3

case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) on which the petitioners have

placed reliance. He contended that in the first information report

there is clear allegation against the petitioners that they repeatedly

subjected the victim to cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of

dowry. According to him, the acts alleged to have been committed

by the petitioners in the first information report would certainly

attract ingredients of the offence under which cognizance has been

taken.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

5. In the first information report instituted on the

basis of the written report of the victim Avantika Ray Sharma @

Puja, it is alleged that she was married on 26.05.2013 to one Vikash

Sharma according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of

marriage itself, her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law (nandoi)

and Dewar raised demand for freeze, washing machine and colour

T.V. They stated that till the demand is not fulfilled, her bidai would

not be made. Despite persuasion by the relatives and family

members of the informant, they did not take the informant to her

matrimonial home after the marriage. Thereafter, her father along

with others went to her matrimonial home and after much persuasion

she was taken to her matrimonial home on 14.12.2015. However,
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.12352 of 2017 dt.26-03-2018
4

from the date she reached to her husband’s home, the accused

persons started subjecting her to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the

aforesaid articles. They threatened her that she would not be allowed

to live in peace unless the demand is fulfilled. She informed her

parents regarding the cruelty being meted out upon her. However,

when her father and other relatives came to her matrimonial home

and tried to persuade them to allow her to live peacefully, the act of

cruelty aggravated. For several dates, she was not being provided

with food. The accused persons abused and assaulted her and on

several occasions she was being locked inside the room. She has

further alleged that one day her mother-in-law tried to strangulate

her and on hue and cry raised by her, the local residents came and

save her live thereafter, her father was informed about the said

incident. When her father came, the accused persons again abused

and assaulted her in his presence. When her father intervened, they

also abused him, thereafter, he took her to his home.

6. The Investigating Officer of the case conducted

investigation into the offence alleged and recorded statements of

witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The allegations made in the first information report were found true

during investigation as a result of which, the police submitted report

under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.12352 of 2017 dt.26-03-2018
5

which, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case to be made

out against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 16.11.2016.

7. The facts of the instant case are distinguishable

from the facts of the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) in which the

Supreme Court has observed that mere casual reference of the name

of the family members of the matrimonial dispute without allegation

of their active involvement in the offence is not sufficient for taking

cognizance of the offence.

8. Here, in the present case, there is not only a

casual reference of name rather the victim has vividly described the

manner in which she was being subjected to cruelty in her

matrimonial home by the accused persons including the petitioners.

9. In that view of the matter, I see no illegality in the

order impugned. The application being devoid of any merit is

dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.03.2018
Transmission 27.03.2018
Date

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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