IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20679 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2014 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya

1. Tara Khatoon wife of late Syed Mahfuz -UI- Haque

2. Sayed Fazal UI-Haque son of Late Syed Mahfuz-UI-Haque, Both Resident
of Village- Abgila, P.S – Muffasil, district- Gaya

3. Gazala Praveen wife of Nasibul Hussain Both Resident of Village- Abgila,
P.S – Muffasil, district- Gaya

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sayeda Zainab wife of Sayed Kashif UI- Haque Resident of Village- Abgila,
P.S – Muffasil, district- Gaya

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv
: Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Adv.
: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr.Madanjeet Kumar, Adv

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-08-2019

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are accused in Complaint Case

No.457 of 2014 wherein cognizance has been taken for offences

under Sections 498A and Section406 I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint of opposite party No.2-

Sayeda Zainab, wife of Sayed Kashiful Haque.

3. The relations of the husband are petitioners herein.

They have challenged the order of cognizance dated 02.03.2014 on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
2/7

the ground that the entire general and omnibus allegation is result

of malicious and vexatious prosecution arising out of dispute of

compatibility between the husband and wife.

4. Contention is that even in the complaint petition, it

is mentioned that opposite party No.2 got suspicion that her

husband had some affairs with the known girl and they were bent

upon to marry with each other. When she complained to the family

members, i.e., the petitioners, they simply set aside her grievance

by saying that the husband of opposite party No.2 is doing job

abroad. Hence, affairs with other girl is natural phenomenon. Next

contention is that husband has already brought Matrimonial Suit

No.361 of 2013 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Gaya for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of the

Mohammden Law. After filing of that petition and knowledge of

the same to opposite party No.2, the present complaint petition

was filed in the year 2014. In the complaint petition itself, it is off

and on stated that all the accused person including the petitioners

in ‘one voice’ demanded more dowry and teased her by words for

non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is specifically mentioned that

on 07.03.2011, money was paid to the bank account of the

husband. Contention is that the husband might have been asking

for money and money was paid to him but the petitioners had no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
3/7

concern with them. Contention is that the rising trend of

implicating the family members whenever matrimonial dispute

arises was taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Preeti Gupta Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr,

(2010)7 SCC 667, when the criminal proceeding was quashed

against the relations of the husband.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite

party No.2 submits that at the stage of cognizance, maticulous

appreciation of evidence is not permissible and once court has

taken cognizance, this Court should not interfere in exercise of

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a casual

manner. Each and every case cannot, as a matter of rule, be

labelled with false and malicious implication of family members.

6. So far factual aspect of this case is concerned, two

things are apparent. First, that husband brought a suit for

restitution of conjugal right against opposite party No.2 prior to

filing of the present complaint petition which goes to show that

matrimonial discord was going on between the spouse. Second that

the allegation of demand of dowry and torture is general and

omnibus by making allegation that all demanded more dowry in

one voice. The husband of opposite party No.2 is not a petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
4/7

herein in whose bank account money was deposited by the father

of opposite party No.2.

7. In the case of Preeti Gupta (Supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court noted that “it is a matter of common experience

that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in

the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper

deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints

which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At

the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of

dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern”.

“Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the

implications and 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.”

8. Para 35 to 37 of the judgment are reproduced

below:

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 husband and all his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
5/7

immediate relations is also not uncommon. At

times, even after the conclusion of 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

complaint are required to be scrutinized with

great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and

protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,

acrimony and bitterness in the relationship

amongst the parties. It is also a matter of

common knowledge that in cases filed by the

complainant if the husband or the husband’s

relations had to remain in jail even for a few

days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
6/7

settlement altogether. The process of suffering is

extremely long and painful.

37. Before parting with this case, we would

like to observe that a serious relook of the entire

provision is warranted by the legislation. 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 is also reflected in

a very large number of cases. The criminal trials

lead to immense sufferings for all concerned.

Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not

be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of

ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these

complaints have not only flooded the courts but

also have led to enormous social unrest

affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the

society. It is high time that the legislature must

take into consideration the pragmatic realities

and make suitable changes in the existing law. It

is imperative for the legislature to take into

consideration the informed public opinion and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20679 of 2015 dt.13-08-2019
7/7

the pragmatic realities in consideration and

make necessary changes in the relevant

provisions of law.”

9. Considering the factual matrix of this case as

discussed above as well as the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Preeti Gupta Case (Supra), in my view, compelling the

petitioners to face trial would amount to abuse of the process of

the Court in view of the vague allegations levelled against the

petitioners who are relations of the husband. Hence, the impunged

order and entire subsequent proceeding arising out of the

impugned order stands quashed and this application stands

allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.08.2019
Transmission Date 16.08.2019