Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1100 (PAT)

Sushma @ Sushma Devi v. State of Bihar

2013-09-10

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2013
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad taking cognizance against the petitioner and others under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011. 3. The allegation against the petitioner and other family members is of torture, assault and turning out of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation in the entire complaint petition is general and omnibus against the petitioner and other family members. It is submitted that she is the married sister of the husband of the informant and is living separately with her husband. In paragraph no. 7 of the application it has been stated that she lives at Delhi along with her children and was married 7 years ago. Learned counsel submits that being the married sister, it cannot be expected that she would be residing in her parents house and would be interfering in the day to day affairs and also torturing the informant for dowry. It is submitted that even in the complaint there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner and further that the allegation becomes unbelievable in view of the fact that it is admitted by the informant that upon the birth of a female child, all the accused came to her parents’ house where they again demanded dowry and left the house after abusing. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be believed that in the parents’ house of the informant, all the accused, including the petitioner, shall come and demand dowry and also abuse the informant. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have held that there is a general tendency to rope in all family members by making vague and omnibus allegations so as to harass the accused. It is further submitted that the Courts have interfered in the matter under Section 482 of the Code where it is apparent that such allegations have made for oblique reasons with mala fide intention. It is further submitted that the Courts have interfered in the matter under Section 482 of the Code where it is apparent that such allegations have made for oblique reasons with mala fide intention. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in (i) State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 ; (ii) Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 and (iii) Geeta Mehrotra V. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (1) PLJR (SC) 10. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Jee Rai V. The State of Bihar reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 139 . 5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 submit that the trial has already begun and some witnesses have also been examined and thus the Court may not interfere in the matter at the present stage. It is further submitted that though the petitioner is married, but her matrimonial house is nearby and she used to visit her parents’ house and also interfered in the day to day affairs. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that this Court earlier, by order dated 11.07.2013, while issuing notice to the Opposite Party No. 2, had stayed further proceedings in the Court below. It is also submitted that in the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No. 2, it is admitted that the petitioner is married sister and it has merely been stated that the petitioner’s matrimonial home is nearby and that she used to mostly reside in her parents’ house and interfered with the day to day business of the family. It is submitted that this admission of being married and that her matrimonial house not being in the same village is enough to indicate that she has been roped in for oblique reasons. 7. Upon considering the rival contentions, this Court finds force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that this admission of being married and that her matrimonial house not being in the same village is enough to indicate that she has been roped in for oblique reasons. 7. Upon considering the rival contentions, this Court finds force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the allegations levelled in the First Information Report it is apparent that the petitioner has been made accused in a very casual manner wherein all the family members of the husband have been roped in, which indicates that the intention behind making the petitioners and other family members accused is not bonafide. Moreover, reliance placed on the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in support his contentions is appropriate. Accordingly, this Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code quashes the entire criminal case relating to Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 including the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad as far as the petitioner is concerned. The application accordingly, stands allowed.