AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
This is an application for quashing the Order of Cognizance dated 17.11.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Patna in Complaint Case No. 2221(C)/2016, whereby and where under learned court below was pleased to taken cognizance under Sections 406, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 married with the petitioner no. 2 on 19.4.2012, according to Hindu rites and rituals. That after marriage the O.P. No. 2 gone to her sasural and lived only two days, and during this period all accused persons began to torture the complainant for illegal extra demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lacks and a colour T.V, and thereafter, the O.P. no.2 gave telephonic information on 22.04.2012, regarding torture and illegal demand to her parents by mobile, and then father of O.P. No. 2 send his son Raushan Kumar on 23.04.2012 to settle the dispute. When the brother of the O.P. No. 2 reached there, then all accused persons became angry and again raised aforesaid illegal demand, and when he refused to fulfill the same, then the complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her brother were brutally beaten by the accused persons, and thereafter snatching all ornaments of OP no.2 ousted her from matrimonial home, and thereafter complainant and her brother returned to her home, and since then, she is living with her parents. She further stated that her parents tried so many times to settled the differences, but despite his best efforts, the accused persons did not ready to keep the O.P. No. 2. She further alleged that all ornaments, cloths and other house hold articles which worth about Rs. 5 lacs has snatched by the accused persons, and she also alleged that petitioner no. 2 also married with another lady and a baby child is also born from the said wedlock. Still petitioners are not ready to keep the complainant/O.P. No. 2, and hence this complaint has been filed.
After examination of the complainant on oath, and considering the statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned trial court took cognizance against both petitioners, who are mother-in-law and husband of OP no.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners never demanded any dowry nor torture OP no.2 on any occasion. It is further submitted that as the OP no.2 herself was not desirous to continue her matrimonial life with petitioner no.2/husband, the present false allegation was raised. It is further submitted that the OP no.2 was never intended to continue her matrimonial life with petitioner no.2/husband, and therefore, she left her matrimonial home in early 2012, whereafter the petitioner no.2/husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of his conjugal right with OP no.2 before the learned Family Court, Saran at Chapra which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.360 of 2012. It was decreed in favour of petitioner no.2/husband. Carrying the judgment and decree, when the petitioner no.2/husband approached to the parental house of the OP no.2, as to bring her to matrimonial home in furtherance of the court order, she refused to accompany him, and thereafter having no option left, the petitioner no.2/husband filed a divorce petition which has been registered as Matrimonial Case No.116 of 2014 before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that despite knowing the proceedings, the OP no.2 never turned up before the learned Family Court, even upon substituted mode of service like publication of proceedings in newspapers. It is further submitted that finally the ex-parte divorce decree was passed in favour of petitioner no.2/husband vide judgment dated 07.02.2015 as passed in Matrimonial(divorce) Case No.116 of 2014.
Arguing further, it is submitted that the said ex-parte order was never challenged before any higher forum till now, and therefore, same attains finality. It is further submitted that the present complaint case was filed in year 2016, only as a matter of retaliation, when the divorce petition was filed by petitioner no.2 against OP no.2, out of oblique motive on imaginary cause of action.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek versus State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083].
Despite service of notice, non appeared on behalf of OP no.2, as to join the present proceedings.
In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the complainant refused to join her matrimonial home after passing the judgment and decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of petitioners, and it further appears that the present complaint case was filed in year 2016, after passing the judgment and decree of divorce dated 07.02.2015, in favour of petitioner no.2/husband, where the allegation against petitioner no.1, who is mother-in-law is appearing very much general and omnibus, accordingly, this Court is convinced enough that continuing present pending proceedings, before the learned trial court is only abusing the process of court of law, and therefore, the impugned cognizance order dated 17.11.2017 as passed by S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.2221(C) of 2016 is hereby quashed/set aside qua both above-named petitioners, by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.