Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1021 (PAT)

Praveen Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2022-11-30

ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

body2022
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. Though Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the informant, but today nobody appears on her behalf. 2. The present quashing application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 31.8.2021, passed by learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Patna City in Didarganj P.S. Case No.52 of 2021 (GR No.807/21) by which the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Patna City has taken cognizance under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused persons. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners with allegations that the informant was married with the son of petitioner no.1, Praveen Kumar Singh on 20.04.2018 according to Hindu rituals. From the second day of marriage, the petitioners including her husband started reproaching the informant that she belongs to a beggar and dishonest family. It is further alleged in the FIR that the husband of the informant has taken Rs.6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs) from the informant for reception at Begusarai and Ahmedabad. It is also alleged that inlaws of the informant have pressurized her to bring Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs) in cash and a four wheeler as dowry and started abusing and assaulting her for nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry. Later on, the family of the informant gave ornaments of Rs.6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs) to the petitioners. It is further alleged that when the informant went to Ahmedabad, her husband tortured her there. It is also alleged that the husband of the informant has illicit relation with other girls. It is alleged that the husband of the informant is impotent. It is also alleged in the FIR that when the informant tried to take part in the Tilak ceremony of petitioner no.3, Shubham Shubhra, all petitioners forced her to go back but when she denied, the petitioners including the husband of the informant locked her in a room and tried to kill her by sprinkling petrol. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1, Praveen Kumar Singh is father-in-law, petitioner no.2, Rani Kumari is mother-in-law and petitioner no.3, Shubham Shubhra is brother-in-law of the informant. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1, Praveen Kumar Singh is father-in-law, petitioner no.2, Rani Kumari is mother-in-law and petitioner no.3, Shubham Shubhra is brother-in-law of the informant. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the husband of the informant is a Scientist/Engineer in ISRO since September, 2012 posted at Ahmedabad. He is a polio affected person from his childhood. The marriage of the informant was solemnized through Jeevan Sathi App in February, 2018 and marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2018. After perusal of the Biodata of the husband of the informant, the family of the informant approached the petitioners for marriage of their daughter knowing the fact that son of petitioner no.1 is 50% handicapped (Annexure-2 series). It is submitted that petitioners were aware that their son is disable, hence, they have not taken dowry from the family of the informant rather they themselves bore the entire expenses of marriage except the expenses of marriage ceremony solemnized on 20.04.2018 at Patna. It is further submitted that the husband of the informant has filed an informatory complaint to the Senior House Officer, Satellite Police Station at Ahmedabad on 29.06.2020 stating therein that there have been incompatibility issues between him and his wife just after one week from the date of getting married, that there was consistent allegation on him being important and that is why she used to make personal comment on his physical disability and, as such, he never consummated their marriage (Annexure-3). It is submitted that the husband of the informant has already filed a divorce case before the Family Court at Ahmedabad on 22.07.2020 being Hindu Marriage Petition No.731/2020 on the ground of mental and physical torture committed on him on several occasions by the informant. The petitioner could not go for his higher studies in USA (Annexure-4). It is also submitted that mother-in-law of the informant, Rani Kumari (petitioner no.2) has filed a petition before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila P.S., Begusarai on 26.02.2021 that on the occasion of Tilak ceremony of her younger son on 19.02.2021, the informant alongwith some anti social elements entered forcibly in the house of the petitioners and created nuisance (Annexure-5). It is also submitted that mother-in-law of the informant, Rani Kumari (petitioner no.2) has filed a petition before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila P.S., Begusarai on 26.02.2021 that on the occasion of Tilak ceremony of her younger son on 19.02.2021, the informant alongwith some anti social elements entered forcibly in the house of the petitioners and created nuisance (Annexure-5). It is further submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless, false and fabricated because petitioners no.1 and 2 are teachers in Upgraded High School, Begusarai and petitioner no.3, who is brother-in-law of the informant, is working in L & T Company posted at Barodara. Petitioners no.1 and 2, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant, are living separately from the elder son in Begusarai and petitioner no.3 is also living separately in Barodara. It is also submitted that when the husband of the informant filed divorce case thereafter the informant has lodged the present FIR on 03.03.2021 against the in-laws of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgments of this Court passed in the case of Animesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 117 , Surendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 923 , Rakesh Thakur vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 954 and Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 263 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is well settled that in absence of specific allegation and prima facie case against coaccused, the order taking cognizance will be bad in law and that will be an abuse of process of court. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the present quashing application. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is an admitted fact that the informant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners after filing of the divorce case by her husband. 7. Taking into consideration the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2021, passed by learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Patna City in Didarganj P.S. Case No.52 of 2021 (GR No.807/21) is set aside and this application is allowed.