Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2218 (PAT)

Rashmi Sinha @ Dejy v. State of Bihar

2011-11-04

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2011
ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.892(C) of 2007 and also the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in the aforesaid complaint case, summoning the six accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In brief, the facts leading to this application are that the opposite party no.2, Smt. Rubi Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.892(C) of 2007, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, against her husband, Birendra Prasad, elder brother-in-law (Bhaisur), Ram Pravesh Singh, sister-in-law (Jethani), Smt. Uma Devi, petitioner no.3, nieces (Bhatijees), Rashmi Sinha alias Dejy and Priti Sinha alias Dipu, petitioners no.1 and 2 respectively, and one Saryug Singh, under Sections 323, 307, 379, 498-A and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the complainant- opposite party no.2 is that her marriage was performed in the year 2000 with the Birendra Prasad and at the time of marriage her parents had given dowry according to their capacity. After her marriage, the opposite party no.2 went to her sasural, where her Jethani, Smt. Uma Devi and Bhaisur, Ram Pravesh Singh, made complaint about not providing the proper dowry as settled and also stated about dire consequences in case of non fulfillment of remaining dowry. After sometime her father came for her Bidai at her sasural, then her Bhaisur and Jethani, refused to send her in Bidai saying that unless the remaining dowry amount is not paid, the Bidai will not be performed, hence, her father returned to his house. The opposite party no.2 stayed at her sasural about six months and in the meantime, she conceived pregnancy. During that period, she was also being taunted by her Jethani, so she was worried. She was also driven out from her sasural house causing assault by her husband, Bhaisur and Jethani. On reaching at her Maika, she narrated the incident to her parents and after few months she gave birth to a son. During that period, she was also being taunted by her Jethani, so she was worried. She was also driven out from her sasural house causing assault by her husband, Bhaisur and Jethani. On reaching at her Maika, she narrated the incident to her parents and after few months she gave birth to a son. Regarding the birth of her son, information was sent to her sasural but no one turned up to look her. After passing over two years, her father brought her alongwith her son to her sasural. Thereafter, again she was being tortured by her Bhaisur and Jethani through various modes. In the meantime, she again conceived pregnancy. While anyhow she was leading her life at her sasural, but again she was removed from her sasural causing assault by her Jethani and daughters of Jethani, giving threatening to kill her. Thereafter, she reached at her Maika and gave written application before the Mahila Aayog, Patna. On notice, her husband and Bhaisur appeared and gave assurance to keep her properly and she was taken back to her sasural but after passing over few months, she was again being tortured and on 25.6.2007, an attempt was made to kill her by pressing her mouth through the pillow but anyhow she woke up and fled away from house raising alarm and lastly, on 28.6.2007, she was driven out from sasural?s house snatching her ornaments, cloths worth Rs.40,000/- and also cash Rs.5000/-. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, on going through the complaint petition, transferred the same to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, who, on inquiry, summoned the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners through the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners no.1 and 2 are the nieces of the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the daughters of petitioner no.3, who is Jethani of opposite party no.2 and they have been falsely implicated in this case only to put undue pressure due to the dispute relating to the landed property. In fact, the opposite party no.2 with the help of her henchmen ousted the petitioner no.3 from the house and, thereafter, she used to reside at Patna, which would appear from Annexure-‘4’ to this application, which is a report of the police submitted on the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda on the application of opposite party no.2. It has also been submitted that the petitioners no.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in this case by the opposite party no.2 with oblique motive. In fact, the petitioners no.1 and 2 were residing at their Nanihal since 2000 for education purpose and they have passed the Matriculation and Intermediate Examinations from Bapu High School, Chandi, Nalanda. The petitioner no.1 has also got Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts from Chandigarh University in 2006. The petitioner no.2 has also got degree in Electrical engineering from National Institute of Technology, Patna, in the year 2007. As such, the petitioners no.1 and 2 had no occasioned to reside at the sasural village of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another {2010(4) PLJR 36(SC)}. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, on perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses, recorded in course of inquiry, has rightly summoned the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners. It has also been pointed out there is specific allegation in the complaint petition of torturing and harassing the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner no.3 for not providing the dowry as settled. So far as the petitioners no.1 and 2 are concerned, they are nieces of the husband of the opposite party no.2 and they are also accused in the complaint petition. 6. On bare reading of the complaint petition, Annexure-‘1’ to this application, it is apparent that there is specific allegation against the petitioner no.3, who is said to be Jethani of opposite party no.2, Ram Pravesh Singh, the Bhaisur and Birendra Prasad, the husband of opposite party no.2, to cause cruelty and harassment to opposite party no.2 for non fulfillment of the dowry as settled. In paragraph-7 of the complaint petition, the opposite party no.2 has only alleged about causing assault to her by her Jethani and daughters of her Jethani, who are petitioners in this application, but there is no specific averment showing the allegation against the petitioners no.1 and 2 to torture or harass the opposite party no.2 for demand of dowry. From the statement of the complainant-opposite party no.2 on solemn affirmation, Annexure-‘2’ to this application, it is also apparent that there is general allegation of torture and harassment against all the accused persons but there is no specific averment about causing cruelty or harassment to opposite party no.2 at the hands of the petitioners no.1 and 2, who are admittedly daughters of petitioner no.3 and the nieces of the husband of the opposite party no.2. 7. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) in paragraphs-30, 33 and 34 of the said judgment has held as under: “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the 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 are also a matter of serious concern. 33. 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.” 8. Now a days, in most of the complaint petitions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the principal motto behind making the accused and leveling frivolous allegation against the married or unmarried sisters, nieces, nephews and relations of the husband chiefly is to heap malice only to satisfy grudge. It is also accentuated by sense of vengeance and to spite at such accused persons. 9. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no.1, Rashmi Sinha @ Dejy and petitioner no.2, Priti Sinha @ Dipu, who are nieces of the husband of the opposite party no.2, in the complaint petition, the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 issuing summons against them appears to be an abuse of the process of the court and it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No.892(C) of 2007, and also the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case with respect to the petitioner no.1, Rashmi Sinha @ Dejy and petitioner no.2, Priti Sinha @ Dipu, are hereby quashed and this application, in their respect, is allowed. So far as the petitioner no.3, Smt. Uma Devi, is concerned, this application with respect to her stands dismissed. ?