Lal Babu Singh v. State of Bihar

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order that petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and Gotini of the complainant and the allegations are vague, general and omnibus as there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. The allegations made do not makes out an offence and the petition has been filed malafidely with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance as the brother of the complainant had been convicted in the case filed by the husband. It has been asserted that this case has been filed in retaliation to the case filed against the brother of the complainant as G.R. No. 1692 of 2009, dated 07.

11. 2010. It has further been contended that taking into consideration the allegation made in the complaint its does not makes out an offence and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners either in the complaint petition or in the statement of the witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party however contends that from the allegation made in the complaint as well as examination of the witnesses, it is apparent that accused persons demanded and subjected cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand, hence the allegation made on the face value makes out an offence under Section 498A. It is submitted that this court at this stage of taking cognizance will require to look on the face value of the complaint whether allegations made, makes out an offence and court will not question the enquiry. Hence it is not proper to quash the order taking cognizance against the petitioners who are relative of the petitioners.

7. Hence on the respective submissions of the parties, the question for consideration whether allowing the order taking cognizance and prosecution to continue is abuse of the process of the Court.

8. Reverting back to the allegation, it is apparent that whatever allegation made specifically about the demand and subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand is against the husband. It is alleged that husband used to come and assault in drunken stage. There is no specific allegation either by father-in- law, mother-in-law and Gotini. In the statement of the witnesses also there is no specific allegation against the petitioners except P.W. 4, the mother of the victim who is not eye witness has only named the petitioner to have assault without any reference to weapon used or part of body and hence whatever asserted by P.W. 4 is general and omnibus.

9. So far other accused accused-petitioners is concerned there is no specific allegation for any act of commission against the petitioners. That except general and omnibus allegation that father-in-law and mother-in-law along with the husband used to subject her to cruelty. The victim-complainant in her statement during enquiry has specifically stated in complaint is quite general and omnibus that accused persons used to assault for non- fulfillment of demand of a Maruti car and her husband used to come at drunken stage and used to assault and driven her out. However, there is no specific allegation regarding other accused persons. Witnesses examined as Ram Nalina Prasad, Ram Pukar Prasad and Anita Devi have not stated in their deposition for any act of commission or omission specifically by the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and Gotini and there is general and omnibus allegation about demand and subjecting cruelty without any reference date, time, place and manner. However, P.W. 4 has stated that Ram Pukar Singh, Lal Babu, Bijay Singh, Girija Devi and Sangita Devi assaulted the Victim. However, P.W. 4 Durgawati is not eye witness, stated in her deposition that this fact disclosed by the complainant. Moreover, her statement naming the accused person to have assaulted is also in general and omnibus manner.

10. This complied with the allegation in the complaint that the husband has falsely implicated the brothers of the complainant when they went to their home for settlement. The Exhibit 2 is the certified copy of the order sheet of GR Case No. 109 of 2008 indicates that the brothers of the complainant were convicted in the said case. Hence the case has been filed with ulterior motive implicating the in-laws.

11. However, it is matter of common exercise the courts from the district level to the Apex Court are flooded the case under Section 498A and matrimonial case. This clearly discontent and unrest in the family life or of a large number of the society. It is matter of common experience that most of these complaints are filed under Section 498 A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations had traveled with oblique motive to implicate the relatives of the husband. However it is pertinent to refer the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in (Preeti Gupta Vrs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, reported in paras 30 and 32 page 676 read as follows ; “ 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complainants under Section 498A I.P.C. are filed in the heat moment over trival 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.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to be best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”

12. However, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is sparingly in exceptional case and the scope and ambit of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to act ex-debito justilia to do real and substantial justice to prevent to abuse of process of the court and otherwise to secure the end of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and power required to be used on second possible. However, decision reported in R. K. Kapur case AIR 1960 SC 866 as well as Bhajan Lal case 1992 supp. (1) SCC has genuine principle and category of cases where whether inherent power can be exercised to quash the criminal case if allowing the prosecution to continue is abuse of the process of the Court and end of justice require the proceeding to be quashed.

13. However, on careful scrutiny of the allegation in light of statement of the witnesses and complainant recorded during enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, it is a matter of common experience that cases are filed under Section 498A in heat of moment where entire family members of the husband are implicated. The general and omnibus allegation and evidence against the petitioner shows agony of the complainant to implicate the family member of the husband and further the fact that the brothers of the complainant having been convicted in case lodged by husband may have appear to be caused to implicate the relative of the husband maliciously with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance. The tendency to implicate the immediate relatives of the husband in grievance is not uncommon.

14. Hence allowing the order taking cognizance and prosecution to continue against the petitioners is abuse of the process of the court.

15. Accordingly order taking cognizance against the petitioners are hereby set aside and petition is allowed. m.p. (Gopal Prasad, J)