IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal M iscellaneous No.18501 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -168 Year- 2016 Thana -PANDAUL District- MADHUBANI

1. Rajeev Ranjan Jha, Son of Baidyanath Jha,

2. Bandana Jha, Wife of Rajeev Ranjan Jha,

3. Krishna Jha, Wife of Shri Bijay Chandra Jha, All are Resident of
Village- Raghopur, P.S.- Manigachhi, P.O.- Nehra, District-
Darbhanga.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ra bin dra Kumar, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-09-2018

This application has been filed invoking the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated

10.02.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Madhubani in G.R. No. 1649/2016 arising out of Pandaul

P.S. Case No. 168/2016 whereunder cognizance of the

offences under Sections 341, 498A and 307/34 of the Indian

Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

has been taken and the accused pesons including the present

petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is said to be the brother-

in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and

petitioner no. 3 is the married sister-in-law of the informant.

It appears that the informant of this case has appeared on
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 2

her own through her Advocate by filing Vakalatnama.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that according to the fardbeyan of the informant she was

married with one Kumud Ranjan Jha, son of Baidyanath Jha

of village Raghopur, P.S. – Manigachi in the district of

Darbhanga. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the

petitioner no.1 being the Bhaisur (elder brother) and

Baidnath Jha (father-in-law) had demanded a sum of Rs.

10,00,000/- but the father of the informant could manage a

sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- only through different persons and

thereupon the marriage was performed.

It is further alleged that the husband of

the informant stayed in her father’s place for

four days in accordance with Maithil Brahmin

customs and during this period he was

demanding for the rest of the amount. After four

days her husband went back to his village but

when the father of the informant requested the

father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, wife

of the elder brother of the husband and the

elder brother of the husband, then they

demanded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the

purpose of Duragaman. It is further alleged that

in the year 2009 father of the informant under

compulsion paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 3

the husband of the informant spent in purchase

of a Flat at Mumbai, but e ven thereafter

Duragaman did not take place. It is stated that

on 30.04.2012, the Duragaman took place and

the informant went to her Sasural at Raghopur

where she stayed for 10 days but not as

daughter-in-law, she was being regularly beaten

and being tortured.

4. It is alleged that she was being threatened to

kill by setting her on fire. Father of the informant brought her

back to her house at Pandaul, thereafter a panchayati took

place wherein the husband of the informant took her to his

house and after spending sometime there he took her to

Mumbai. It is alleged that at Mumbai also all were torturing

her. It is alleged that the informant was under treatment in

Lakshya Second Hospital from 02.07.2013 to 08.07.2013. On

12.08.2013, the husband of the informant called some

‘Gunda elements’ and tried to kill the informant but with the

intervention of the brother and staff namely, Lalan Paswan,

she could be saved. It is further alleged on 05.08.2013, her

father-in-law, Bhaisur and husband tried to kill her then she

came back to her Mausi’s place with her brother on

16.08.2013.

5. It is stated that since September 2013 her

brother brought her back to Pandaul where she was living in
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 4

her father’s place. At this stage, it is alleged that on

05.08.2016 the husband of the informant came on a

Motorcycle at 8.00 a.m. in the morning at Pandaul and called

her. When the informant went on the door, her husband put

her Dupatta around her neck and started pressing with an

intention to kill her. It is alleged that on her shouting, her

father, brother and other persons came and thereby her life

could be saved. It is alleged that her husband pushed her and

fled away. It is then stated that she had suffered injury and is

suffering from pain on her neck, back and in the body and for

that treatment she had been brought to referral hospital

where she made her statement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that a bare reading of the fardbeyan of the informant it would

appear that the entire thrust of the allegations of demand and

the alleged torture and assault are against the husband of the

informant.

7. It is submitted that so far as these petitioners

are concerned, there is no allegation that they had either

demanded or received any down amount from the father of

the informant or had committed any act of torture against the

informant. It is submitted that a general and omnibus kind of

allegations have been made at one place in the fardbeyan that

for purpose of Duragaman of the informant when her father

approached the sasural people then the father-in-law,
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 5

mother-in-law, sister-in-law, wife of the elder brother-in-law

and the elder brother-in-law had demanded a sum of Rs.

3,50,000/- for the purpose of Duragamanm, but in the same

fardbeyan it is clearly stated by way of allegations that her

father had given a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was spent by

her husband in purchase of Flat at Mumbai.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

submits that according to the fardbeyan, the informant had

herself gone with her husband to live at Mumbai and there is

no allegation that these petitioners were living in Mumbai and

had indulged in assault. The F.I.R. only vaguely and

cryptically alleged that all were torturing her. No name or

relation has been mentioned. It is submitted that such kinds

of allegation do not even prima facie indicate that at any stage

these petitioners had indulged in any act of torture.

Regarding the alleged occurrence, which took place on

12.08.2013, the informant has made allegations against her

husband and in the later part a vague statement has been

made that on 05.08.2013 the father-in-law, Bhaisur and her

husband had tried to kill her. It is submitted that according

to the informant she was living with her father at Pandaul

since September 2013. Regarding the alleged occurrence

dated 05.08.2016 the whole allegations have been made

against the husband alone.

9. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 6

no. 1 is a government employee posted at Employees

Provident Fund Organization in the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, his wife Bandana Jha is also living with

him and both of them have no concern with the family of

Kumud Ranjan Jha and the informant. The petitioner no. 1

and 2 are separate in their mess and business which is

evident from the contents of the F.I.R. itself where the

informan says that her father had given Rs. 2,50,000/- which

was spent by her husband on purchase of Flat in Mumbai. So

far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, she is the married

sister-in-law of the informant. Petitioner no. 3 was married

about 15 years back and is living with her husband at Bokaro

who is a railway employee posted there.

10. Learned counsel submits that in course of

investigation police submitted a final form against these

petitioners showing that no material could be collected

against them which may be said to be sufficient to proceed

against these petitioners, still the learned Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Darbhanga differed with the police report without

application of a judicial mind and while taking cognizance of

the offences decided to issue summons against these

petitioners also.

11. Learned counsel submits that the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, while summoning

these petitioners, has not even shown the reasons for taking
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 7

a different view and merely by referring certain paragraphs of

the case diary, he has issued summons against all the

accused persons including the petitioners. It is submitted

that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani has

failed to appreciate that neither the fardbeyan of the

informant nor any material in course of investigation could be

collected by police to even prima facie implicate these

petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Madhubani could not see that these petitioners

have been implicated in the present case only because they

happened to be related with the husband of the informant.

12. It is submitted that in the case of Pritam

Ashok Salaphule Vs. State of Maharastra reported in

(2015) 11 SCC 769, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been

pleased to observe that the prosecution of the relatives of the

husband by simply implicating them on vague grounds

cannot be allowed to continue. This is the consistent view of

the court as well.

13. Contesting the submission of learned counsel

representing the petitioners, Ms. Sama Sinha, learned

Advocate representing the informant that there are

allegations against these petitioners in the fardbeyan,

therefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani

has not committed error in differing with the police report

and issuing summons against these petitioners as well.
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 8

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and upon perusal of the records, this court finds that it is not

in dispute that petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law who is a

government employee working in the Employees Provident

Fund Organization and petitioner no. 2 is his wife and these

two petitioners are living separately in mess and business

with the family of Kumud Ranjan Jha and the informant. It is

also not in dispute that Krishna Jha (petitioner no. 3) is the

married sister-in-law of the informant who was married about

15 years back and is presently living with her husband at

Bokaro where his husband is a railway employee.

15. When this court goes through the allegations

made in the fardbeyan, it is found that these three petitioners

have been implicated in the F.I.R. without there being any

specific allegations or even prima facie allegations indicating

that these petitioners have participated in demand of dowry

or the alleged occurrence. Only a vague and most tentative

kind of allegations made in the fardbeyan that at the time of

Duragaman these petitioners were also among the members

of the sasural party who had been asking for Rs. 3,00,000/-

as demand for Duragaman. This court finds that according to

the informant herself a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given by

her father for purpose of Duragaman and the said amount

was spent by her husband in purchasing the Flat at Mumbai.

There is no allegation that petitioner no. 1 and 2 have got any
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 9

connection with the family of the informant and further in the

fardbeyan there is no allegation that these two petitioners

had committed any overt act of torture and assault. Again in

a most vague and cryptic manner and with sole intention to

implicate each and every member of the family of the

husband a statement has been made that petitioner no. 1

had tried to kill the informant. A mere one line statement has

been made in this regard without indicating the place and

how. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, she has also

been implicated in this case without there being any prima

facie material to indicate her involvement in the alleged act of

torture. In fact, there is no allegation of torture or assault

against these petitioners save and except the bald allegations

in a most cryptic manner. Even in course of investigation

police could not collect any material to show prima facie

involvement of these petitioners in commission of the alleged

occurrence.

16. In the given circumstance, in the opinion of

this court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani

was required to keep in mind the judicial pronouncements of

the Hon’ble Apex Court and this court as well in respect of

the cases related to the family members or close kith and kin

of the husband and in the cases where the wife who comes

with vague allegations with an intention to implicate each and

every family members of the husband. The learned Chief
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.18501 of 2017 dt.11-09-2018 10

Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani has failed to appreciate the

nature of allegations and the manner in which it has been

stated in the fardbeyan. Keeping in mind the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court which has been cited and has been taken

note of hereinabove, this court is of the considered opinion

that the continuation of the prosecution of these petitioners

would only be an abuse of the process of the court. In order

to secure the ends of justice the order taking cognizance and

issuance of summons dated 10.02.2017 passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G.R. No. 1649/2016

arising out of Pandaul P.S. Case No. 168/2016 in so far as it

relates to these three petitioners stands quashed.

17. This application is allowed to the extent

indicated hereinabove.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DAT E
Uploa ding Date 13.09.2018
Transmission Date 13.09.2018