AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 21-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2018, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria, in S. Tr. No. 314 of 2016, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 319 of 2015.
The instant case was registered on the basis of complaint case filed by the father of the deceased-victim against her husband and other family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 328, 313, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was subsequently sent to the police station for registration of the F.I.R. under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police, after thorough investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 498(A), 328, 313, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant’s daughter, Shweta Kumari, was married to one Gopal Kumar, on 02.05.2008, according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, her husband made repeated demands for money, consumed liquor, misappropriated her jewellery and savings and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, with the other accused persons. It has further been alleged that while the daughter of the informant was three months pregnant, her husband forcibly administered medicines to her, resulting into miscarriage and serious health complications, including kidney infection and subsequent kidney failure. On 13.03.2015, the complainant brought her daughter to her parental home and thereafter got her treated at Begusarai, Patna and ultimately at SGPGIMS, Lucknow. Despite being informed of her critical condition, the accused allegedly neither visited nor provided any financial assistance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the informant, while petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the informant. The allegations against the petitioners are false and there is an attempt made by the informant to falsely implicate them. It has further been submitted that, as per the F.I.R. itself, the informant’s daughter remained under treatment at various hospitals, she had admittedly been admitted to the hospital on 13.03.2015 and ultimately died during the course of treatment on 25.05.2015. It has further been submitted that no complaint whatsoever was made anywhere including the hospitals where she was being treated.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was severe anaemia, septicaemia and renal failure, which collectively resulted in shock, leading to cardiac and respiratory failure and, ultimately, death. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards para 18 of the case diary, wherein the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has been reproduced, and from perusal of the same, it is apparent that the main thrust of allegation is solitary against the husband of the deceased, who used to demand dowry, administered medicines to abort her pregnancy and the only allegation with respect to the other co-accused/family members was that they were not getting her treated and all the expenses for the treatment of the deceased were being borne by her father. Moreover, in her statement, the deceased made general and omnibus allegations that the petitioners used to assault her; however, she did not state that such assault was made on account of non-fulfillment of any dowry demand. It has further been submitted that the witnesses examined during the course of investigation, have not supported the allegation against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that since expenses were huge as the deceased was fighting between life and death, the petitioners were not economically sound to bear the expenses and this was the bone of contention which has led to the registration of the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, referring to the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that the present case against the petitioners is vexatious and malicious one, which has purposely been filed out of malice and personal vendetta.
Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has submitted that cognizance has been taken in the matter and there are specific allegations against the petitioners of having acted in collusion with the husband, which ultimately led to the death of the deceased. It has further been submitted that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and for framing of charges, as, upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind, took cognizance against the petitioners.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
It is apparent from the F.I.R. itself that the deceased was treated at various hospitals, yet no complaint was made against the petitioners during that period. The post-mortem report also indicates that the death was caused due to severe anaemia, septicaemia and renal failure. Further, in the statement of the deceased, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., there is no allegation regarding any demand for dowry or torture on account of non-fulfillment of such demand. The entire thrust of the allegations, including the alleged administration of medicines to terminate her pregnancy, demand for dowry and assault, is against the husband.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 05.03.2018, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria, in S. Tr. No. 314 of 2016, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 319 of 2015 as also all the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed only with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. However, further proceeding with respect to petitioner no. 2 – Gopal Kumar, may continue.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.