Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1455 (PAT)

Nirupama Kumari @ Rukama Devi v. State Of Bihar

2012-10-12

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance dated 4.3.2010 passed in Naubatpur P.S. Case No.171 of 2008 by the court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. In this case petitioner no.1 is married Nanad and petitioner no.2 is the Nandosi of the informant. From the order sheet it appears that notice had been validly served on opposite party no.2 but there is no response from her side. This case is being finally adjudicated in absence of opposite party no.2. 4. Primarily question that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that being a distant relative have been wrongly added as accused in this case that too after receipt of notice on divorce case which was filed by the husband of opposite party no.2 as well as there is no specific allegation made against the petitioners as they are not involved in the present case but maliciously and without any reason have been implicated in this case. 5. From the First Information Report it appears that allegation has been made that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and just thereafter father-in-law and mother-in-law started torturing the informant and making demand for dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. The informant as alleged continued to suffer their mental torture which she used to inform to her parents. In the year 2005 father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law (Bhaishur) and sister-in-law and Nandoshi were demanding money from her and also started torturing her on account of non-payment of dowry as aforesaid. When she could not tolerate she informed to her father. Her father brought the facts to the notice of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Bari Garaila, by an application dated 23.10.2005. Due to intervention of the Mukhiya for certain period they cooled down she was kept in good condition but again after some time they started demanding the money and perpetrated torture on her. It has further been alleged that her father again made an application on 24.3.2008 before the Gram Kuchhari bringing to the notice about the torture perpetrated on her by mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law. It has further been alleged that her father again made an application on 24.3.2008 before the Gram Kuchhari bringing to the notice about the torture perpetrated on her by mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law. On 11.4.2008 while she was at the roof all on a sudden mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband, brother-in-law (Bhaishur), Nanad and Nandoshi forcibly illegally locked her in a room. Some how or the other she informed her parents. They came along with the police officials and could be saved from illegal confinement of her in-laws. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case petitioner no. 1 is married sister of the husband of the informant and she along with her husband were living at their own house and they did/do not have any connection with opposite party no.2. He further submits that there is no specific allegation made against these two persons rather only omnibus allegation has been made. In fact allegation has been made against father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband. It has been argued from the side of the petitioner that this case is retaliatory act, on receipt of notice of matrimonial case vide Matrimonial Case No.209 of 2008 which has been filed by her husband against opposite party no.2. In fact notice was issued vide order dated 2.5.2008 and when she received the notice then she lodged this present criminal case. He has further submitted, it has become order of the day, in matrimonial cases all the family members even those who are distant relatives are made accused causing unnecessary harassment, agony and pain and in this connection he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gutpa and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in A.I.R.2010 SC 3363 and has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the said case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note that now 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. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment: “34. 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: “34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized 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 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 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 7. From the record it appears that the nature of allegation against the petitioners are omnibus in nature and also appears that after receipt of the matrimonial case the present case has been filed with a view to implicate all the family members connected with the husband in order to cause unnecessary harassment, agony and pain to the petitioners. 8. This court finds that the order of cognizance against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court and completely illegal. Accordingly the order dated 4.3.2010 so far as it relates to the petitioners is quashed and accordingly this application is allowed. With regard to other persons the court below will proceed with the in accordance with law.