AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 13.08.2014, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nawada in Complaint Case No. 849 of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the allegation, the marriage of the son of the Petitioner No. I was solemnized with OP No. 2 Anita Devi in the year 2011 as per Hindu rites, when the OP No. 2/ Wife reached her Sasural, she was tortured for bringing Rs. 50,000/- from her father for opening a Grocery Shop and the father of OP No. 2 anyhow managed to give Rs. 10,000 to the petitioners. It has further been alleged that OP No. 2 was kept well for some time, but thereafter, the torture at the hands of her in-laws became a daily routine and the petitioner no. I also tried to solemnize the second marriage of his son with another lady, but anyhow the same was averted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 and 5 are married sisters-in-law (nanad) and petitioner no. 6 and 7 are younger brothers-in-law (devars) and petitioner no. 8 is sister-in-law (Gotani) of the complainant. It has further been submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and the thrust of allegation is against the husband. It has further been submitted that there is a growing tendency of falsely implicating the family members of the husband, when there is matrimonial discord between husband and wife and reference has been made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preety Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. as reported in 2010 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Anr. as reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. as reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State Of Bihar as reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and has submitted that where allegations under Section 498A of the IPC against the relatives of the husband are general, vague and omnibus without specific allegations of overt act, continuation of prosecution as a matter of course is an abuse of the process of the Court. It has further been submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners is malicious, out of personal vendetta and to spite personal score.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has further submitted that the petitioners have actively participated in the commission of offence against the complainant. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that upon perusal of the complaint, examination of complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses, a prima facie is made out against the petitioners and the order taking cognizance is in accordance with law as well as on the facts and that the petitioners have rightly been directed to face the trial.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the allegations are vague and general in nature and in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order taking cognizance vide order dated 13.08.2014, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nawada in Complaint Case No. 849 of 2014 is hereby quashed with respect to the petitioners only. However, further proceeding with respect to other co-accused persons shall continue.
This application is allowed.