Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17379 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Satish Kumar @ Fantush, Son of Late Shyam Bihari Prasad, Village Manpurwa P.S. Hilsa, District - Nalanda 2. Nitish Kumar Son Of Late Shyam Bihari Prasad, Village Manpurwa P.S. Hilsa, District - Nalanda 3. Anshu Kumari, D/O Late Shyam Bihari Prasad, Village Manpurwa P.S. Hilsa, District – Nalanda 4. Amrendra Kumar @ Feku, son of late Shyam Bihari Prasad, Village Manpurwa, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rekha Kumari, Wife of Amrendra Kumar @ Feku, D/O Chandeshwar Prasad, Village Tufanganj P.S. Rahui, District - Nalanda .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. V.C. Pathak, Advocate. For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER : Mr. Binod Shanker Modi, A.P.P. 8 02-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bihar Sharif at Nalanda in Complaint Case No.809 C of 2010 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 323 , 379 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From the complaint petition it appears that the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17379 of 2011 (8) dt.02-07-2013 2 marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 27.2.2010. In the marriage sufficient gifts were given including cash of Rs.75,000/-, ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles but peaceful marriage could not sustain and thereafter as per the complaint petition the accused persons demanded dowry to their satisfaction. In the event of non- fulfillment of demand threatening was given for second marriage. It has further been alleged that the dispute was resolved by a written agreement and accordingly the complainant returned to her in-laws house. According to terms of settlement it was agreed that no torture will be perpetrated on her and they will allow the complainant to lead a peaceful life but it could not continue. They have again started demanding dowry and were assaulting the complainant which led to filing of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are Debar and petitioner no.3 is Nanad whereas petitioner no.4 is husband and on perusal of complaint petition no specific allegation has been made against petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 though from the averment made in the complaint petition it appears that dispute was settled by the agreement which is Annexure B to the counter Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17379 of 2011 (8) dt.02-07-2013 3 affidavit where the parties have settled the dispute with a commitment that they will not torture the complainant and allow her to lead peaceful life. On that basis he has submitted that it does not disclose that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 had ever tortured or demanded money. Even from the complaint petition vague statement has been made. There is no specific allegation made against petitioner nos. 1 to 3 for demand of dowry or torture. He has further submitted that the tendency in general to rope all the family members in a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in order to put harassment to the family members and he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 and specifically relied on paragraph 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that on reading of the complaint petition along with Annexure-B to the counter affidavit specifically shows that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were also party to the assault and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17379 of 2011 (8) dt.02-07-2013 4 torture. Though there is no specific averment in the complaint petition but there are averments against that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were also supporting petitioner no.4 for assault and torture. He further submits that the court below has rightly taken cognizance and does not require interference. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) in paragraph nos. 34 and 35 has taken view and opined, it is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in large of complaint. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment. the complaint “34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of implications and the 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. 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 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17379 of 2011 (8) dt.02-07-2013 5 take realities pragmatic 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 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 complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. “ the place where allegations The of On reading of the complaint petition it appears that there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 1 to 3 though there is averment in the complaint petition that all the family members were torturing and demanding the dowry. There is no specific incident or any example has been given in the complaint petition to show that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 had participated in torturing the complainant. So
Legal Reasoning
much so Annexure-B also does not support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners where it shows that all the family members were in order to purchase a peace in the family put their signature cannot be used as weapon against them. In this view of the matter, this Court feels that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 have wrongly and unnecessarily been made party. It is dispute between wife and husband and it Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17379 of 2011 (8) dt.02-07-2013 6 appears that Debar and Nanad have no say in the affairs of wife and husband and the complaint petition shows exaggerating of fact with a view to implicate these petitioners with oblique purposes. In this view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 23.2.2011 so far as it relates to petitioner nos. 1 to 3 is quashed. With regard to petitioner no.4 the court below will proceed with the matter. Accordingly this application is partly allowed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/-