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 the order dated 30.01.2017/21.02.2017, taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 1435(C) of 2014, which was subsequently registered as Sare (Nalanda) P.S. Case No. 23/2015 (G.R. No. 802/2015, under the provision of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
As per the allegation, the complainant alleged that she was married to petitioner no.1 (Kumar Gaurav Arya) on 25.03.2012 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It has further been alleged that at the time of marriage, the father of the complainant had given Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs) in cash, ornaments worth Rs.2 Lacs, cloths and furniture worth Rs. One lakh as gifts. It has further been alleged that after 14 days of marriage, the petitioners and co-accused persons started demanding one Scorpio vehicle as dowry from her father, then the complainant told that her father cannot fulfill the demand as her father had sold land and had taken loan for her marriage, thereafter, all the accused persons started abusing and harassing her and when the complainant’s father came to meet her, she narrated all the incidents to him and thereafter, though her father tried to pacify the matter and resolve the dispute amicably, but his efforts yielded no result. It has further been alleged that, thereafter, all the accused persons ousted the complainant from her matrimonial house, after taking all the ornaments of the complainant and the complainant came to her maternal home with her father. It has further been alleged that a panchayati was held, but parents of the accused did not agree. It has further been alleged that the husband of the complainant solemnized his second marriage with one Priti Kumari, for which the petitioner No.1 had filed a petition dated 25.08.2014 before the Special Marriage Officer, Barh, Patna. It has further been alleged that on 02.11.2014, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant came to her maternal home and again demanded the Scorpio vehicle, but the father of the complainant did not agree and they went away threatening and abusing them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 is the married sister-in-law, while petitioner no.5 is the brother-in-law (husband of petitioner no.4) respectively of the complainant they have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Opposite Party No.2 alleged that she was married to petitioner no.1 on 25.03.2012, whereas from Annexure-5, it would be manifest that the Sergeant Major Police Center, Dihari vide Memo No. 1096 dated 06.04.2015, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, has informed that Opposite Party No.2 was appointed, as a constable on 17.08.2013 and at the time of appointment she was unmarried.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that, in fact, the Opposite Party No.2 was married to one Dilip Kumar (a constable), the said Dilip Kumar was departmentally proceeded, upon having relationship with the Opposite Party No.2, as wife, when he was already married from before, the said Dilip Kumar was punished in the said departmental proceeding and he was dismissed from service in accordance with Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that findings with respect to him is final, the wife of said Dilip Kumar has also filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 1893 of 2015 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the Opposite Party No.2 has been arrayed as an accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, referring to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, that the Opposite Party No.2 had solemnized marriage in the intervening night of 12.03.2025 at a resort in Aurangabad with one Shashi Kumar Yadav and the conduct of Opposite Party No.2 appears to be not fair since if she was married with petitioner no.1 from before, then there was no occasion to enter into marriage with any other person when the earlier marriage was still subsisting.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner is mala fide and vexatious on the face of it and it has purposely been filed in order to create defence as against Dilip Kumar, who was facing departmental proceeding for having a relationship with the Opposite Party No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC Page 335, and has submitted that the case of the petitioner falls under many of the categories, as discussed in paragraph 102 of the said judgment. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Agency has conducted investigation in a very perfunctory manner without looking into the actual state of affairs and the cognizance came to be taken against the petitioners in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana as reported in (2024) 6 SCR 129, that every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offences under Section 498A, 494, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted, referring to the judgments of 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, that where allegations under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the relatives of the husband are general, vague and omnibus in nature without specified allegations of overt act, continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to gross abuse of the process of Court.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that there are prima-facie materials to constitute offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 379, 504, 506 and 34, in which cognizance has been taken.
It has further been submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is itself under cloud as the marriage of the petitioners No.1 was solemnized with Opposite Party No.2 on 25.03.2012 even when the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was subsisting with Dilip Kumar, petitioner No.1 married with Opposite Party No.2. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 that Opposite Party No.2 denies the factum of marriage with the said Dilip Kumar.
It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 with respect to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that as regards the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 with one Shashi Kumar Yadav on 12.03.2025 and the photographs therein of her ceremony, the same is with regard to engagement and not as regards the marriage.
It has further been submitted that it is well settled that at the stage of order taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has to see a prima facie case and from the FIR, the investigation and as also the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners, a prima facie case is made out, and as such no interference is required as the same is good in law and on the facts. It has further been submitted that the order taking cognizance be not interfered with and there are sufficient and prima facie material, so as to proceed against the petitioners.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
In view of the settled proposition of law, as discussed above, there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. Moreover, in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana as reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed concerned about the implication of other relatives, when allegations are fully vague, general and bereft of any specific role or conduct attributed to them. In the present case, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are married sister-in-law as well as her husband, who live at a distant place and come to the house on important occasions, their implication does not appear to be proper, as regards the implication of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are mother-in-law and father-in-law and keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 16 SCC 666 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 at page 669, Prity Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), the prosecution against them are not sustainable and as regard the petitioner no.1 (the husband of the Opposite Party No.2) is concerned, on the ground that the conduct of Opposite Party No.2 is itself under cloud, as on the allegation by a lady that her husband, namely Dilip Kumar, has solemnized marriage with Opposite Party No.2, he was departmentally proceeded and that person was dismissed from service on the finding that the Opposite Party No.2 was married with the said Dilip Kumar. In that regard, a complaint was also made before a competent court of criminal jurisdiction by way of filing a complaint by the said lady, who claimed to be the wife of said Dilip Kumar, and even there is acceptance by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 that the recent ceremony, as alleged by the petitioner no.1, was with one Shashi Kumar Yadav was an engagement ceremony and not a marriage ceremony.
In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution against the petitioners would be now an abuse of the process of Court as the same is vexatious and malicious one, purposely filed with an oblique intent, and accordingly the order taking cognizance against the petitioners dated 30.01.2017/21.02.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 1435(C) of 2014, which gave rise to Sare (Nalanda) P.S. Case No. 23/2015 (G.R. No. 802/2015) is hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.