IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28314 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-940 Year-2012 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE
District- Jehanabad

1. Saryulal Shastri Son of Late Chhatu Sah

2. Pramila Devi Wife of Saryulal Shastri

3. Chandan Kumar Son of Saryulal Shastri

4. Maya Kumari Daughter of Saryulal Shastri
All are residents of Chandan Market, Beur Jail Road, Police Station – Beur
in the district of Patna.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Madhuri Gupta @ Seema Kumari Daughter of Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta
resident of Bijali Colony, Police Station – Jehanabad in the district of
Jehanabad.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2020

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashment of order dated 12.08.2014 passed in Complaint Case

No.940 of 2012 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Jehanabad, has taken cognizance against the petitioners

and others for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The challenge is on the ground that cognizance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28314 of 2016 dt.09-01-2020
2/6

has been taken in a mechanical manner without considering the

fact that the complainant has not alleged anything against the

petitioners who are relations of the husband.

4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that

the petitioners have filed twice petition for discharge before the

Court-below which are pending under consideration. Hence,

this application is infructuous.

5. Petitioner Saryulal Shastri is already dead.

Hence, his prayer is dismissed as infructuous.

6. The complainant, who is wife of co-accused

Manish Gupta, has stated in her statement on oath before the

Magistrate that she filed the complaint case against the

petitioners and her husband. She was married on 30.09.2009

with Manish Gupta before the Notary Public. Thereafter, she

solemnized marriage in a temple as well at Bela in the district of

Gaya.

7. After marriage the complainant came to her

matrimonial house in Mohalla Beur in the town of Patna. She

stayed there for one month and thereafter along with her brother

she went to her parents house. From parents house the husband

took her to Nagpur where he was doing business. For one year

the complainant remained at Nagpur and she gave birth to a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28314 of 2016 dt.09-01-2020
3/6

female child. Thereafter, she again came to her parents house at

Jehanabad along with her husband. Thereafter, husband did not

come and he was demanding rupees one lac as dowry. That

much is the statement of the complainant, which evidently

shows that there is no allegation against the petitioners.

8. False implication with intent to harass the

relations of the husband has been concern of the Courts since

long. Reference may be made to Preeti Gupta and Another

Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in AIR 2010 SC

3363, Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and

Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. Considering the cases

aforesaid in Shivji Rai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in

2013(3) PLJR 139 and again in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary and

Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Another reported in

2014(3) PLJR 263 a Bench of this Court observed 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 Supreme Court in the

case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28314 of 2016 dt.09-01-2020
4/6

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 Geeta 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

consequencesare not properly visualised by

the complainant that such complaint can lead

to insurmountable harassment, agony and

pain to the complainant, accused and his close
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28314 of 2016 dt.09-01-2020
5/6

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

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 scrutinised with great care and

circumspection.”

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28314 of 2016 dt.09-01-2020
6/6

9. Since no allegation is there against the petitioners

continuance of criminal prosecution is apparently an abuse of

the process of the Court against the petitioners. Hence, the

impugned order and entire subsequent proceeding stands hereby

quashed in respect of petitioners, namely, Pramila Devi,

Chandan Kumar and Maya Kumari.

10. This application is allowed accordingly.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.01.2020
Transmission Date 10.01.2020