SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajjan Chauhan And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 20 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4032 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-573 Year-2013 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda

1. Rajjan Chauhan Son of Naresh Chauhan

2. Naresh Chauhan S/O Late Shivan Chauhan

3. Fulo Devi Wife of Naresh Chauhan

4. Raniya Kumari D/O of Naresh Chauhan All are Resident of vill-

Sondiha,P.S-Sarmera,Distt.-Nalanda

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Sugani Devi D/O Ramjapo Chauhan Resident of vill-Shekhra Bigha,P.S-

Sarmera,P.O-Brakenar,Distt.-Nalanda

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Upendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shankar Modi App

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-09-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order of

cognizance dated 25.02.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,

Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case No.573(C) of 2013

whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A, Section379,

Section323 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. According to complaint petition, the complainant

was married with petitioner- Rajjan Chauhan in the year 2010 and

soon after the marriage, there was demand of a cycle and

television as well as Rs.25,000/- more. For non-fulfillment of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4032 of 2015 dt.20-09-2019
2/5

demand, all the inlaws were torturing the complainant in different

ways including by physical assault.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the allegation is general and omnibus and not specific against

anyone and the inlaws are victim of false implication due to

growing tendency to over implicate the family members whenever

a matrimonial discord starts between the spouse.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits

that husband has married with another lady during subsistence

marriage with the petitioner and that lady has already lodged an

identical complaint against the husband.

6. SectionIn Shiv Jee Rai vs. The State of Bihar Anr,

reported in 2013(3) PLJR 139, a Bench of this Court relied on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and Anr

Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363

and observed in para-7 of the judgment as follows:

“7. It is also a matter of common

knowledge that exaggerated versions of

the incident are reflected in a large

number of complaints. The tendency of

over implication has become affair of the

day that has been noticed by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4032 of 2015 dt.20-09-2019
3/5

Supreme Court in the case of SectionPreeti

Gupta and Another vs. State of

Jharkhand and Another, reported in

A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 [ : 2010(4) PLJR

(SC)36] and recently the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the year 2012 in the

case of SectionGeeta Mehrotra and Another vs.

State of U.P. and Another* passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 in

paragraph nos. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 27

where in the similar fact and situation

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

now it became tendency in general to

rope all the family members in a case

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code in order to (sic)undue harassment

to the family members. It will be

appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34

and 35 of the aforesaid judgment in the

case of Preeti Gupta (supra) :–

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of

the complaint the implications and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4032 of 2015 dt.20-09-2019
4/5

consequences are not properly visualised

by the complainant that such complaint

can lead to insurmountable harassment,

agony and pain to the complainant,

accused and his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to

find out the truth and punish the guilty

and protect the innocent. To find out the

truth is a Herculean task in majority of

these complaints. The tendency of

implicating the husband and all his

immediate relations is also not

uncommon. At times, even after the

conclusion of the criminal trial, it is

difficult to ascertain the real truth. The

courts have to be extremely careful and

cautious in dealing with these

complaints and must take pragmatic

realities into consideration while dealing

with matrimonial cases. The allegations

of harassment of husband’s close

relations who had been living in different
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4032 of 2015 dt.20-09-2019
5/5

cities and never visited or rarely visited

the place where the complainant resided

would have an entirely different

complexion. The allegations of the

complainant are required to be

scrutinized with great care and

circumstances.

7. Considering the ratio decided in the aforesaid case

and general and omnibus nature of allegation, chances of over

implication cannot be ruled out. Hence, the impugned order

against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 namely, Naresh Chauhan, Fulo Devi

and Raniya Kumari stands quashed. However, the criminal

proceeding shall go on against the husband of opposite party No.1

namely Rajjan Chauhan.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this application is

partly allowed and partly dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.09.2019
Transmission Date 21.09.2019

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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