AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The present application on behalf of petitioner No.1 (Karandeep Kumar) has already been withdrawn by order dated 01.11.2018.
The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 13.11.2017, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria, in Complaint Case No. 519(C) of 2017, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that she was married to petitioner No. 1 (Karandeep Kumar) on 27.01.2012, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, jewellery worth Rs. 1,50,000/-, a motorcycle worth Rs. 65,000/- and other articles as dowry. After ten days of marriage she came back to her parental house. It has further been alleged that in the year 2013, she returned to her matrimonial home and, after petitioner No. 1 was selected in CISF on 29.09.2014, all the accused persons started demanding an additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and subjected her to cruelty. It has further been alleged that the accused persons threatened to solemnize another marriage of petitioner No. 1, if the demand for dowry was not fulfilled. It has further been alleged that on 20.04.2017, the accused persons ousted the complainant from her matrimonial home, whereupon she started residing at her parental home.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, as they are relatives of the husband of the complainant, who are consisting of the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law as well as the married sister of the husband of the complainant. It has further been submitted that there happen to be general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 as well as the case of Geeta Malhotra & Anr. versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. as reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 and has submitted that general and omnibus allegations, without attributing any specific overt act to the accused persons, who happens to be relatives of the husband of the complainant, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It has also been submitted that there is a tendency on the part of the complainant to implicate all the family members of her husband in order to put pressure in cases of matrimonial discord.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal as reported in 1992 Supplementary (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.
It has further been submitted that Section 494 would not be applicable against the petitioners (except petitioner No.1), and with respect to the offences under Section 498A and 406, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the fact of general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, as also in view of the judgments as discussed above, the order taking cognizance dated 13.11.2017, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria as against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.