Harihar Prasad v. State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- including gold, silver ornaments and house hold items, including other electronic articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the accused No.2 Harihar Prasad and later on a Hero Passion motor cycle bearing Regd. No.BR.1AT.9117 worth Rs.50,000/- including registration insurance and tax was given to the accused No.1 Raj Kumar on 31st December 2009. After the marriage the complainant went to her matrimonial house where she lived for3 days and after that she went to village Nawada which happens to be her Sasural and after 2 days of Holi festival, she returned back to her parental house. As Raj Kumar, being a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department was staying at Gaya in the house of Sri Kapildeo Prasad and it has been alleged that while Raj Kumar was at Gaya he evaded to receive the mobile call whenever complainant tried to contact him.

Thereafter father of the complainant went to Gaya where he met the landlord Sri Kapildeo Prasad and asked about the son in-law Raj Kumar and from there the father of the complainant brought him to his residence on 21st March 2010. In the mean time, father of the complainant contacted the aforesaid landlord and learnt from him that Raj Kumar, has been living with accused No.9 Naina Sona whereafter father had gone to Gaya, she was kept concealed in the bath-room whereupon he felt suspicion. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 After knowing the affair of the husband, the complainant and her family members were surprised. The relatives of the complainant contacted the family members, including the husband who gave an undertaking to keep the complainant with full honour and dignity and would snap his relationship with that lady. It is stated that the complainant went to Ram Lakhan lodge where all the accused persons were living and allegation has been made against Madan Prasad of demand of money whereas allegation has been made against Julee, petitioner no.5 to open the door.

Specific allegation has been made against Ramjee Prasad, petitioner no.4 who tried to catch hold her hand with lewd intention and asked the complainant that he (Ramjee Prasad) would keep her (complainant) as kept, as her (complainant’s) husband was already keeping a lady as wife. In Parea-12 allegation has been made against the father-in-law and mother in-law of demanding money of Rs.3,00,000/- and only thereafter she would be allowed to live as the 2nd wife. There is an allegation against accused Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Renu Kumari (Nanad) and Dinesh Prasad (Nandosi) of demand of Rs.12,00,000/-and against Naina Sona petitioner no.8 allegation has been made of illegal relationship. Counsel for the petitioners submits that from allegation made in the complaint petition it appears that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 complainant has tried to implicate all the family members with wrong and exaggerated version of facts so much so there is no specific allegation made against any petitioner except the husband and only vague and uncorroborated statement has been made against them.

In the complaint petition, though there is allegation of demand raised by the accused persons but they are general in nature without giving any specific date and events. He has further submitted that it has become the affair of the day, in order to pressurize the family members, all are made accused with exaggeration version which has been noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preety Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported iln (2010)7 SCC 667 Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005)3 SCC 507 where the court has taken the view that omnibus allegation cannot be a basis to proceed with the matter against all the family members. He has further submitted that the court below has misdirected himself in refusing to discharge the petitioners, as there is no sufficient material against them to form strong and grave suspicion merely on the basis of bald allegation cannot be treated to be a basis for continuation of prosecution.

On the other hand, counsel for the other side has submitted that against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in Para-10 there Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 is allegation of demand of dowry and against Ramji Prasad specific allegation has been made that he entered into the room touched the hand lewdly, asked the complainant that her husband had kept a wife at Gaya and now he (Ramji Prasad) would keep her(complainant) for life. He has further submitted that allegation has been made against petitioner nos. 4 and 5 for demand of dowry but admitted, there is no allegation made against Julee Kumari in whole of the complaint petition. With regard to Naina Sona accused no.8 allegation has been made for establishing illicit relationship and not of demand of dowry. Having considered the rival contention of parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preety Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 has taken note of growing tendency in the society to implicate all the family members in connection with matrimonial dispute, even the indirect relatives having no connection with day to-day affair of the family are being made party.

The Hon’ble Court reflected picture happening in the society, held that it is a matter of common knowledge that distorted versions are reflected in large number of complaint petition. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in large number of c ases. It will be relevant to quote Paraaa-34 and 35 of the said judgment which are as under: Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 “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 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 scrutinized with great case and circumspection.

Experience revels that long and protected criminal trials lead to rancor, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8236 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful”. The same principle has been reiterated in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 which shows growing tendency of society of over implication with distorted facts. Let us examine the facts mentioned in the present case. The mother in-law and the father in-law have special status in the family. They having control over their sons and daughters generally control the day to-day affair of the family.