SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Prem Saxena & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 July, 2018

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19069 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2323 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

1. Smt. Prem Saxena w/o Major Prakash Chandra Saxena

2. Major (Retd) Prakash Chandra Saxena s/o Late R.N. Saxena.
Both resident of House No 6/984, Vikash Nagar, P.S.- Vikash
Nagar Lucknow- 226022, (U.P.)

… … Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anupma Saxena W/o Amber Saxena Opp Angan Appt. Congress Maidan,
Kadam Kuan Dist. – Patna.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Mohammad Shabbir Alam
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-II, APP

Date : 11-07-2018
In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who are senior citizens and are

more than 70 years of age, are father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the respondent-complainant seek quashing of Complaint Case No.

2323(C) of 2012 registered against them in which cognizance has

been taken by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, on

05.06.2013 for offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal


It is the case of the complainant that she was married to

the son of the petitioners on 15.02.2002. Out of the wedlock a
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19069 of 2015 dt.11-07-2018

daughter was born to her on 12.06.2003 and a son was born on

25.10.2009. She claims to be residing in Patna but after marriage

she is staying with her in-laws in Lucknow. It is alleged that illegal

demand of dowry was made and she was harassed for non-

payment of dowry and contending that the same amounts to an

offence under Section 498A/34 IPC the complaint was filed.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are senior

citizens. Overwhelming medical papers in support of various

ailments suffered by the petitioners suggest that they are bed-

ridden and are staying in Lucknow and have never come to Patna

to commit any offence. That apart, from the body of the complaint

and the averments made therein it is alleged that only vague and

unspecified allegations with regard to harassment is made without

any specific details or specific act of commission or omission

attributable to the petitioners indicated in the body of the


Accordingly, contending that based on the aforesaid

narration of facts as it transpired from the complaint, no case is

made out for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 498/34 IPC

and prayer is made to quash the complaint. In support of the

contention, reference is made to the judgments of the Supreme

Court in the cases of Neelu Chopra vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19069 of 2015 dt.11-07-2018

184], Geeta Mehrotra vs.State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 10 SCC

741] and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460]

to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint

is liable to be quashed.

Finally, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 11 SCC 260] to say that the complaint is

liable to be quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal

of the record it is seen that in the complaint filed except for

making vague allegation with regard to demand of dowry and

harassment by the petitioners and their son that also still while

residing in Lucknow with them the complaint case has been filed

in Patna. If the averments made in the complaint which are vague

and general in nature are analyzed in the light of the backdrop of

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it

would be seen that the complaint prima facie seems to be absurd,

unspecified, does not give any detail of the acts of commission and

omission which constitutes ingredients necessary for commission

of the offence, are general in nature and has been made in omnibus

manner. There is no allegation of torture and beating. Only general

allegations of harassment are made out. In her statement given
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19069 of 2015 dt.11-07-2018

before the court on 18.12.2012 which forms the basis for

registration of the complaint the complainant only says that she

was married to the son of the petitioners on 15.02.2002. After one

month of the marriage incorrect allegations were levelled against

her and she was scolded. It was alleged that she has not brought

T.V., Fridge and other domestic materials and they used to demand

jeweleries and more rupees. This seems to have occurred in the

year 2002 and 2003 but no complaint in this regard was made at

that point of time. It is said that thereafter she came to Patna and

stayed for more than two-and-a half years in Patna. Thereafter her

husband came and took her to Lucknow where she started living

with him and in the year 2009 she gave birth to a boy. Thereafter

she came back to Patna and her husband illegally took out certain

amount from her joint account. It is alleged that her in-laws took

away her gold ornaments. It is said that frustrated by this action

also she came to Patna in October 2011 and is staying in Patna

since then. Ion a query made by the court, she says that she is

M.A. passed, her father worked as Sales Manager in Tata Motors

and is now retired. Her father-in-law retired from Army in the year

2000. Both her children are staying with her. Her husband has filed

a case for custody of the children and she has filed a case for

maintenance. She further says that she has not filed any case of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19069 of 2015 dt.11-07-2018

demand of dowry. She says that after 2003, she has been staying

most of the time in Patna. She further says that on the basis of

mutual understanding with her husband she came to Patna. Finally

she says that her in-laws are more than 70 years of age. A complete

reading of the statement recorded on oath in the court which forms

the basis for registration of the complaint goes to show that as far

as the present two applicants are concerned, nothing is averred or

whispered which would go to make out an offence under Section

498A/34 IPC.

Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the

fact when the court finds that the process initiated is only a process

for abusing the process of law inasmuch as the respondent-

complainant is continuously staying in Patna since last more than

four years, even after a decree passed against her for restitution of

conjugal life she has no intention to stay with her husband, instead

has initiated a case for maintenance and other matrimonial

disputes against the husband. As far as the present case against the

applicants for criminal office under Section 498A/34 IPC is

concerned, a bare reading of the complaint does not make out any

case for proceeding with the offence and, therefore, the complaint

is liable to be quashed.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19069 of 2015 dt.11-07-2018

Accordingly, I allow this application. Proceeding in

Complaint Case No. 2323(C) of 2012 pending in the court of the

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna is quashed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

Uploading Date 16.07.2018
Transmission Date 16.07.2018

Leave a Reply

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

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