IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46339 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2325 Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- PATNA
1. Sudama Devi Wife of Late Janeshwar Singh
2. Ramesh Singh Son of Late Janeshwar Singh
3. Pushpa Devi Wife of Ramesh Singh All Resident of Village – Jay Bigha,
P.S.-Madanpur, Dist.-Aurangabad
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Smt. Laxmi Singh Wife of Rajesh Kumar Singh, Daughter of Shyam
Bahadur Singh Resident of Mohalla – Chiraiyatarn, Gali No. 1 P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Dist.-Patna
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 12-10-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners are seeking quashing of the
order dated 14.02.011 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2325(C) of
2010 by which cognizance under Section 323, 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has
been taken and the petitioners have been summoned by the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017
2
learned Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the
elder brother of the husband and petitioner no. 3 is the wife
of the elder brother of the husband of
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2. All these petitioners
have been falsely implicated on a general and omnibus
allegation against them.
Learned counsel submits that from perusal of
the complaint petitioner it will appear that the husband of
the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is in service at
Kolkata, and it is her case that she requested her husband to
keep her with him at Kolkata, but he did not agree. A son
was born from the marriage on 31.07.2002. The allegation
against the elder brother that he told the Opposite Party
No. 2 that unless Maruti Car is given in dowry she will not go
to Kolkata and shall live in present condition has no basis,
because it is her own case that she was taken to Kolkata in
April, 2005, where she was staying peacefully with her
husband, but later on allegations have come that the
mother-in-law and the wife of elder brother threw her out
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017
3
of the house when she came back from Kolkata.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the allegations against the mother-in-law, elder
brother and wife of elder brother who are all separate and
are admittedly living in village are false, concocted and
baseless. In fact, the allegations are super-imposition just to
falsely implicate the entire family in the present case due to
matrimonial discord between the Opposite Party No. 2 and
her husband. Filing of the present case after about nine
years from the date of marriage itself indicate that so far as
the family members (petitioners) are concerned, they have
never actively participated in any alleged act. He submits
that this normal tendency to implicate the entire family
members under Section 498A I.P.C. by imposing baseless
allegations even against those members of the family who
are separately living and having no concern with the family
of the complainant as is the present case.
No one has appeared to oppose the present
application even though Opposite Party No. 2 has entered
appearance through her advocate.
This court has considered the statements made
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46339 of 2014 dt.12-10-2017
4
in the complaint petition. The marriage is of the year 2001,
the allegations mostly cluster around the conduct of the
husband, though in the later part, these petitioners have
also been implicated on some vague and general allegations
of committing cruelty without their being any description as
to when such alleged occurrence took place.
In the opinion of this court, the petitioners being
closed kith and kin of the husband of the complainant-
Opposite Party No. 2 are being prosecuted for sheer
harassment, therefore, continuance of the proceeding
against them, in the opinion of this Court, will only be an
abuse of the process of the court.
In the result, the impugned order is set aside as
against the present petitioners and the application is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.10.2017
Transmission Date 12.10.2017
