AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Despite valid service of notice none appears on behalf of opposite party No.2 to contest the present application.
The petitioners have filed this application seeking quashing of the order dated 11.12.2015 passed in C.R. No. 723 of 2015, T.R. No. 1387 of 2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Madhubani, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution case, as put forth by the complainant, is that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 2 in May 2011 and the parents of the complainant had spent about three lakhs after selling their land and also given many articles as gift, however, when she went to her matrimonial house, for non-fulfillment of an additional demand of Rs.50,000/-, she was tortured by the accused persons. It has further been alleged that on 24.08.2014 at around 03:00 PM, the accused persons ousted her from her matrimonial house after beating her by means of lathi and danda and also retained her jewelry, whereafter she went to her parental house and a panchayati was also held, but to no avail. It has further been alleged that thereafter the complainant filed a complaint case bearing C.R. No. 1371 of 2014, however, she stopped pursuing the said case since a compromise was entered into between the parties in M.R. No. 312 of 2015. After compromise, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house and she also became pregnant, however, thereafter again the demand was made and for non-fulfillment thereof, she was tortured, pressurized for abortion and was ousted from the house and threatened to be eliminated, whereafter she came to her parental house and resides there.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are respectively the father-in-law, the husband and the mother-in-law of the complainant.
It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant herein has filed several cases against the petitioners. As per her own admission in the complaint petition, the complainant had earlier lodged Complaint Case No. 1371 of 2014 and as per her own admission, the same came to be disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the parties and thereafter the present case came to be lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after filing of the present case, she has again lodged a Complaint Case No. 1168 of 2016, which was subsequently sent to the police for registration of the FIR under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1, happens to be the father-in-law, while petitioner No.2 is the husband and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law respectively of the complainant and there happens to be general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners without specifying any overt act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners and multiple cases filed against them itself amounts to gross misuse of the provisions of law and filing of multiple cases themselves shows the vexatious and malicious intent of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and has submitted that the case of the petitioners falls under various categories as discussed in paragraph 102 of the said judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, that where allegations under Section 498A IPC against the relatives of the husband are general, vague and omnibus in nature without specific allegations of overt acts, continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner No. 2, the husband of the complainant, has himself been made victim of the circumstances and the victim of the malicious intent of the complainant by implicating him in multiple cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, thus, lastly submitted that the order taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the general nature of allegations against the petitioners and the malicious and vexatious intent of the complainant in implicating them in multiple cases and also considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed above, the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2015 passed in C.R. No. 723 of 2015, T.R. No. 1387 of 2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Madhubani, is hereby quashed.
This application is accordingly allowed.