IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2903 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. – 17 Year- 2016 Thana – M ahila District- PATNA
1. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Son of Mr. Hari Shankar Singh,
2. Hari Shankar Singh, Son of Late Ram Pariksha Singh,
3. Mr. Nirmala Singh, Wife of Hari Shankar Singh,
All are resident of 12/215-R-5 Laxumanpuram Colony, Bajardiha road, P.S.-
Bhelupur, District- Varanasi (U.P.).
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through D. M Patna.
2. Annu Singh, daughter of Brajendra Prasad, resident of D/142 P.C. Colony,
P.O.- Lohia Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
…. …. Respondent/s
Appearance:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Kumar,
Mrs. Archana Sinha and
Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 3.
For the Informant: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 07-05-2018
The three petitioners initially moved this Court for
quashing of the First Information Report being Mahila P.S. Case No.
17/2016 (G.R. No. 2350/2016) registered under Sections 498A and 34
of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the respondent no. 2
whereas petitioners no. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-
in-law respectively.
2. It is the case of the respondent no. 2 that after her
divorce with her first husband, namely, Dipak Kumar Singh, her
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
2/9
marriage was fixed with petitioner no. 1 on 26.11.2015 in Markandey
Mandir, Varanashi. It is alleged that her husband had made the father
of the respondent no. 2 to believe that his family members would have
no objection on the respondent no. 2 being a divorcee but suddenly
the petitioner no. 1 gave a telephone call to the father of the
respondent no. 2 and informed him that the marriage cannot be
solemnized on 26.11.2015 because his Bank A/C was attached by the
Income Tax Department and a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is required for
purpose of marriage expenses. It is alleged that on this information the
father of the respondent no. 2 gave a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs out of which
Rs. 8,50,000/- was deposited in the Bank A/C of a family friend of her
husband and her father gave gifts in a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- in cash,
one golden chain, one golden ring and also gave to the respondent no.
2 Rs. 50,000/- in cash, chain, finger ring, Payal, etc. The marriage was
solemnized on 26.11.2015 in Mahadev Mandir at Varanashi in
presence of Maikey people and Sasural people in accordance with
Hindu rites and customs.
3. It is further alleged that after her marriage she came to
her Sasural and there she found that Sasural people were talking
something but she was unable to understand as to what they were
planning. It is alleged that her husband left her at Patna Maikey on
01.01.2016 and told her that he was going to Jaipur. Her husband
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
3/9
promised her to come back on 14.01.2016 to take her with himself but
thereafter her husband told her over telephone to demand a sum of Rs.
1 lakh in cash and the amount kept in fixed deposit in her name and
only when the same will be given he will take her with himself. It is
stated that on this her father tried to convince her husband but he did
not agree. It is alleged that with effect from 26.01.2016 her husband
put her telephone no. and residential telephone no. on the Reject Call
Mode. She alleged that when she tried to give a call to her mother-in-
law and father-in-law they were not picking up her call, therefore, she
alleged that being harassed she came back to Varanashi with her
father and brother-in-law (Bahnoi).
4. It is also alleged that they were not allowed to enter in
the house by her Sasural people, thereafter, she had submitted a
written complaint vide letter no. DR-322 dated 04.03.2016 to Mahila
Police Station. Her husband was called upon to place his case in
Mahila Police Station within three days but he did not turn up. In the
last line of her complaint she requested the Officer-in-charge of
Mahila Police Station, Gandhi Maidan, Patna to register a case against
her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law and to initiate legal
action against them.
5. It appears that during pendency of the Writ Application,
on filing of a chargesheet by police, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
4/9
Class, Patna took cognizance of the offences U/S 498A/34 IPC read
with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the accused
persons were summoned. Petitioner no. 1 was granted anticipatory
bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No.
30417/2016 dated 17.04.2017 on taking note of the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 that he would pay a sum
of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the informant from May, 2017 subject to
any order being passed in matrimonial and maintenance proceedings.
6. It appears that petitioner no. 1 failed to comply with the
order and moved the Hon’ble Supreme court against part of the order
by which he was directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- towards maintenance
subject to final order in maintenance proceedings. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court having noted the contentions of the parties observed
that “It would be more appropriate for the petitioner to approach
the High Court again and make an application in this regard.”
During this period, since petitioner no. 1 failed to comply with the
condition, a warrant of arrest was being issued against him but during
pendency of the Writ Application he has paid the outstanding amount
@ Rs. 2500/- per month through a Demand Draft which was handed
over to the learned counsel representing the petitioner no. 2 in this
case.
7. The order taking cognizance has been brought on record
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
5/9
by way of a Supplementary Affidavit. Again, vide I.A. No. 1402/2018
the order taking cognizance dated 28.08.2017, which is Annexure-5 to
the Supplementary Affidavit, has been challenged with a prayer
seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the Writ Application.
8. In course of argument learned counsel representing the
petitioners initially attempted to press the Writ Application for
quashing of the First Information Report and the order taking
cognizance on behalf of the three writ petitioners but soon after some
argument having noticed the difficulty in pressing the application on
behalf of the husband (petitioner no. 1) learned counsel for the
petitioners made a statement at the Bar that he would not press this
application insofar as it relates to the husband (petitioner no. 1); he
has sought to confine his prayers with respect to the father-in-law
(petitioner no. 2) and the mother-in-law (petitioner no. 3). In view of
this stand of the learned counsel representing the petitioners, the
present application insofar as it relates to the husband (petitioner no.1)
is dismissed as not pressed.
9. The Writ Application and the amendment in the prayer
portion challenging the order taking cognizance are now confined to
the father-in-law (petitioner no. 2) and the mother-in-law (petitioner
no. 3) respectively.
10. Learned counsel representing the remaining petitioners
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
6/9
has read out the First Information Report whereunder at no place there
is any whisper of allegation against the father-in-law and the mother-
in-law. Learned counsel submits that a bare reading of the F.I.R.,
without adding or subtracting anything out of it, it may be found that
prior to fixing of the marriage no talk was alleged to have taken place
with these petitioners. There is a categorical statement that whatever
talks or promises or demand had taken place were allegedly between
the father of the respondent no. 2 and her husband (petitioner no. 1).
The amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- has not been paid in the A/C of these
petitioners, the allegation is that her husband had told her father that
the marriage cannot be solemnized on 26.11.2015 because his Bank
A/C was attached and a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was required for marriage
expenses. There is no allegation at all that at any point of time, either
before marriage or after marriage, these petitioners had demanded any
money. From a bare perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that even after the
marriage the respondent no. 2 had not resided with these petitioners
which is apparent from her own statement that she tried to talk to her
mother-in-law and father-in-law over telephone, meaning thereby that
the respondent no. 2 was not residing with her mother-in-law and
father-in-law.
11. In the nature of the allegations learned counsel submits
that this Court will find that it is one of the cases where the mother-in-
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
7/9
law and the father-in-law are being prosecuted only because they
happen to be the near relations and kith and kin of the husband. It is
thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
present application as also the amendment application are fit to be
allowed as against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
respondent no. 2 even though vehemently argued against the husband
(petitioner no. 1) but when the learned counsel for the petitioners
made it clear that he would not press his application with regard to the
petitioner no. 1, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has fairly
come out with a stand that the F.I.R., on the face of it, is not making
out any allegation of cruelty or demand of dowry against the father-in-
law and the mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2, he, however,
hastened to add that this does not mean that the father-in-law and the
mother-in-law may be absolved from their responsibility, if not legal,
a social responsibility to ensure that the respondent no. 2 is not
harassed. He has thus submitted that this Court is not required to
interfere with the First Information Report or the order taking
cognizance against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2 and after going
through the contents of the written complaint filed by the respondent
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
8/9
no. 2 which has given rise to the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations mentioned in the written
complaint nowhere alleges anything against the father-in-law and the
mother-in-law, who are petitioner no. 2 and 3 respectively in this case.
On the contrary, the allegations made by the respondent no. 2 are
clearly showing that the entire negotiations of marriage had taken
place between the father of the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner no.
1. The demand of money for expenses is also alleged against the
petitioner no. 1 only. No act of torture or harassment has been alleged
against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law in the First
Information Report. In fact, the entire written complaint talks of
allegations against petitioner no. 1 but, in the last line of the
complaint, only a request has been made to the Officer-in-charge to
register a case against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law also.
14. In the opinion of this Court it is one of those cases
where the father-in-law and the mother-in-law are being prosecuted
only because they are the parents of the petitioner no. 1, there being
no allegations at all against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law in
the First Information Report, no material could be brought to the
notice of this Court to demonstrate that the order taking cognizance
and issuance of summons against the father-in-law and the mother-in-
law may be allowed to sustain.
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2903 of 2017 dt.07-05-2018
9/9
15. In result the prayer in the Writ Application as also the
amendment praying for quashing of the First Information Report and
the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons insofar as they
relate to the father-in-law and the mother-in-law respectively are
allowed.
16. The order taking cognizance as also issuance of
summons against petitioner no. 2 and 3 is hereby set aside, the
prosecution as against them is quashed. The application is partly
allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Dilip, AR
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.05.2018
Transmission 09.05.2018
Date
