Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1787 (PAT)

Jagarnath Prasad v. State of Bihar

2011-08-24

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2011
ORDER The Petitioners have approached this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.505 of 2008 and also the summoning order passed on 25.6.2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua finding the prima facie case against the accused-petitioners under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In short, the case is that Bihari Lal Sao, the father of opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, filed the aforesaid complaint petition with the allegation that he performed the marriage of his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 with the petitioner no.3, Manesh Kumar Prasad according to Hindu rites and customs and she was sent in Bidai on 21.4.2006 with him. At the time of marriage, he had given a bank draft of Rs.3,40,000/- in the name of petitioner no.1, Jagarnath Prasad, the father of petitioner no.3 and also a Hero Honda Motorcycle, computer, T.V., Fridge, furnitures, ornaments and clothes worth Rs.1,50,000/- as gifts. His daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, was kept for one week properly at her sasural but thereafter the accused-petitioners used to ask Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, to bring Rs.5 lacs as dowry to purchase Alto car and for which she was being tortured. It is also alleged that when Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, showed her inability to ask her father about the cash Rs.5 lacs then the accused-petitioner no.3, Manesh Kumar Prasad, the husband of opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, assaulted her with fists and slaps saying her to ask her father to give the aforesaid money and she was being tortured in various ways. Thereafter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, informed the complainant on phone about the aforesaid dowry demand and then he reached at the sasural of his daughter and stayed there in night and all incidents were narrated by opposite party no.2 to him. The complainant showed his inability to give Rs.5 lacs for Alto car in dowry and had tried to convince them and returned to his house. In spite of that there was no change in the behaviour of the accused-petitioners and his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was being tortured and thereafter, she again informed the complainant after passing of four months regarding her torture by the accused-petitioners. In spite of that there was no change in the behaviour of the accused-petitioners and his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was being tortured and thereafter, she again informed the complainant after passing of four months regarding her torture by the accused-petitioners. Then the complainant again went to the sasural of his daughter, opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, alongwith the witnesses and had tried to convince again but all went in vain and in his presence, his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was slapped by her husband, accused-petitioner no.3 giving threatening to leave the house. Thereafter, the complainant returned to his house alongwith his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2. At that time, the opposite party no.2 was pregnant and after four months she gave birth to a female child on 4th of February, 2007. In spite of that, he always used to request the accused-petitioners to bring her daughter, opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, but they were determined on demand and they were not ready to bring his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, but anyhow, his son-in-law, accused-petitioner no.3, came to his house and took his daughter in Bidai but there was no change in the behaviour of his son-in-law, accused-petitioner no.3 and his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was being tortured. 3. The further case of the complainant is that on 16.4.2008, under conspiracy all the accused-petitioners asked his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 to accompany them to go to Vaishno Devi for Mundan Ceremony of her daughter and her daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 went with him to Vaishno Devi, for performing Mundan Ceremony and while returning from there, in way, at Kudra Railway Station , accused-petitioner no.3 snatched the baby from the lap of her daughter and she was forced to get down from the train by the accused-petitioner no.3 asking her to come with Rs.5 lacs from his father. Thereafter, her daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 came to her Maike and narrated all the incidents to the complainant. The complainant approached the accused-petitioners saying that they had given assurance to come at his house while returning from Vaishno Devi but they did not come, then all the accused-petitioners told him that whether he had come with Rs.5 lacs for car and when he showed his inability, all the accused-petitioners abused him and thereafter he returned to his house. The complainant approached the accused-petitioners saying that they had given assurance to come at his house while returning from Vaishno Devi but they did not come, then all the accused-petitioners told him that whether he had come with Rs.5 lacs for car and when he showed his inability, all the accused-petitioners abused him and thereafter he returned to his house. Accordingly, the complaint case was filed. 4. In course of inquiry, after filing of complaint case by the complainant, Bihari Lal Sao, the father of opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, S.A. of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses, namely, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, Vanshnarayan Pal and Sahwan Idrisi, were recorded The learned Sub Divisional Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua, vide order dated 25.6.2008 finding the prima facie case under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, summoned the accused-petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively of the daughter of the complainant, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, whereas petitioners no.6 and 7, namely, Sanjay Prasad Gupta and Sangita Devi, respectively are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and they are living separately at village-Manikpur, Kurtha, District-Arwal (Bihar). The petitioner no.4, Mithilesh Prasad, is the brother of the husband of opposite party no.2 and is an officer in Indian Army, who used to live alongwith his wife-Rekha Devi, petitioner no.5 and occasionally used to come at Ranchi. Petitioner no.8, Nitu Kumari is the widow sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 and was residing at her village-Chiraiyan and she has also no concern with the alleged demand of dowry and torture to opposite party no.2 but all have been made accused with ulterior motive without allegations. It has also been submitted that the place of occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition is said to be at Ranchi but the complaint petition has been filed in the district of Kaimur at Bhabua and, as such, there is lack of jurisdiction of the court, which has summoned the accused-petitioners. 6. It has also been submitted that the place of occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition is said to be at Ranchi but the complaint petition has been filed in the district of Kaimur at Bhabua and, as such, there is lack of jurisdiction of the court, which has summoned the accused-petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua, on perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of inquiry has rightly summoned the accused-petitioners named in the complaint petition. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that from perusal of the complaint petition and statement of the victim opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, it is apparent that while the victim-opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, was returning alongwith petitioner nos.1 to 3 from Vaishno Devi, she was forced to get down from the train after snatching her baby from her lap at Kudra Railway Station so, the summoning of the accused-petitioners by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua is within its territorial jurisdiction. 7. The complaint petition has been filed by the complainant, Bihari Lal Sao, the father of the victim opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, alleging that all the accused-petitioners started torturing the victim opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, but the specific allegation has been made only against petitioner no.3, the husband of opposite party no.2 for demand of dowry of Rs.5 lacs for an Alto car by slapping and torturing her. The complainant, Bihari Lal Sao, in his S.A. has supported the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition. The two witnesses, namely, Vanshnarayan Pal and Sahwan Idrisi, have stated the similar facts in their statements more or less as made in the complaint petition. The victim opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, in her statement has stated that she knew the name of accused-petitioners, named in the complaint petition and supported the factum of her marriage and torturing her as alleged in the complaint petition. The victim opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, in her statement has stated that she knew the name of accused-petitioners, named in the complaint petition and supported the factum of her marriage and torturing her as alleged in the complaint petition. She has also stated that she had gone to Vaishno Devi for Mundan Ceremony of her daughter alongwith her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law and returning from Vaishno Devi, she was forced to get down from the train at Kudra Railway Station after being assaulted by her husband and Sangita Devi, snatched her baby. She has also stated to a court’s question that she is residing at her Maika since twenty days and she has also stated that her husband was doing business at Ranchi. 8. From the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, it is apparent that there is general allegation of torture against all the accused-petitioners named in the complaint petition. In complaint petition only specific allegation is against accused-petitioner no.3, Manesh Kumar Prasad to demand Rs.5 lacs for an Alto car and torturing for the same his wife opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 in her statement has also narrated the names of petitioner no.1, 2, 3 and 7 alongwith whom she was returning from Vaishno Devi and was dropped at Kudra Railway Station. Not a single word has been stated against the accused-petitioner nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 constituting prima facie case against them. 9. It is a matter of common experience that most of the complaint petitions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations implicating the husband alongwith his whole family members and immediate relations which closes the door of deliberations for settlement of the dispute between the husband and wife at the instance of the family members and immediate relations. The principal motto behind leveling frivolous allegations against family members, like, a married or unmarried sisters of the husband or the husband of his married sister chiefly is to heap malice so as to harass them. It is also accentuated by sense of vengeance and to spite at such accused persons. The principal motto behind leveling frivolous allegations against family members, like, a married or unmarried sisters of the husband or the husband of his married sister chiefly is to heap malice so as to harass them. It is also accentuated by sense of vengeance and to spite at such accused persons. No doubt, on inquiry, at the time of issuing the summons, the court is required to see whether prima facie case is made out on perusal of the complaint petition and statements of the witnesses and that at that time, it is not required by the court to examine the statements of the witnesses meticulously, but it has not even to proceed in a mechanical way. 10. As far as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners about lack of jurisdiction of the court is concerned, from the complaint petition and the statement of the victim, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, it is clear that she was forced to get down from the train snatching her baby by Sangita Devi after being assaulted by her husband in course of returning from Vaishno Devi after performing Mundan Ceremony of her daughter at Kudra Railway Station. So, it cannot be said that there is lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court. 11. Keeping in view the fact that there is no specific allegation in the complainant against the accused-petitioners no.4, 5, 6 and 8, the order of issuance of summons against them appears to be an abuse of the process of the court and it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the aforesaid accused-petitioners no.4, 5, 6 and 8. As such, the order summoning the accused-petitioners no.4, 5, 6 and 8, namely, Mithilesh Prasad , Rekha Devi , Sanjay Prasad and Nitu Kumari passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Complaint Case No.505 of 2008 is hereby quashed. This application with respect to them is allowed. So far as petitioners no.1, 2, 3 and 7, namely, Jagarnath Prasad, Sumitra Devi, Manesh Kumar Prasad and Sangita Devi are concerned, this application as against them stands dismissed.