KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & Ors. v. STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

accused. False implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. In the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. [Paras 12, 18, 19][563-G-H; 567-E-H; 568-A-B] Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667 : [2010] 9 SCR 1168; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741: [2012] 9 SCR 641; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 – relied on. Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443 : [2018] 12 SCR 19; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259 : [1993] 3 SCR 930 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 14 SCR 713 [2018] 12 SCR 19 [1993] 3 SCR 930 referred to referred to referred to (2018) 10 SCC 472 relied on Para 6 Para 7 Para 10 Para 13 A B C D E F G H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R. A [2014] 8 SCR 128 [2010] 9 SCR 1168 [2012] 9 SCR 641 (2018) 14 SCC 452 relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 14 Para 15 Para 16 Para 17 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1492 of 2019. Smarhar Singh, Ms. Shweta Kumari, Advs. for the Appellants. Samir Ali Khan, Abhay Kumar, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Kumar Milind, Shagun Ruhil, Vishal Nautiyal, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2019, filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) challenging the FIR No. 248/2019 dated 01.04.2019 implicating the Appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The High Court vide order impugned herein dismissed the same. Factual Matrix 3. The Complainant (Respondent No. 5 herein) Tarannum Akhtar @ Soni, was married to Md. Ikram on 18.09.17. The appellants herein are the in-laws of Respondent No. 5. On 11.12.17, the said Respondent initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging demand for dowry and harassment. Thereafter, when the file was put up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for passing order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Ld. Magistrate concluded that upon perusal of material evidence no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognizance for the B C D E F G H KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR [KRISHNA MURARI, J.] 561 offence under section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and Respondent No. 5 herein came back to the matrimonial home.

Subsequently, on 01.04.19, Respondent No. 5 herein, gave another written complaint for registration of FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. Ikram and the appellants herein. The complaint inter-alia alleged that all the accused were pressurizing the Respondent wife herein to purchase a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.

Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court, for quashing of the said FIR dated 01.04.19, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. The High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants herein, being the niece (Respondent No. 1), Mother in-law (Respondent No. 2), Sister in-law (Respondent No. 3), and brother in law (Respondent No. 4) have thereby approached this court by way of the present Special Leave Petition. Contentions made by the Appellants

The counsel for the Appellants herein contends, that the Police Officer was duty bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be made, as mandated by this court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors.1 .

It is also submitted that previously in the year 2017, the Respondent wife had instituted a criminal complaint on similar allegations, whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence issued summons only against the husband, and found that the allegations made against the appellants herein were omnibus in nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the Appellant in-laws herein, and should be dealt with accordingly. Reliance is placed on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law And Justice & Ors.2, wherein it was observed:-