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