AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.
Present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 666 of 2022 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others and summons have been issued thereunder.
The present case arises out of an FIR lodged by the informant/opposite party no. 2 who has made allegations of subjecting her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by this petitioner and also the other family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused in a case under Section 498A of the IPC. However, the allegations made in the FIR are more or less general and omnibus in nature and the allegations are also denied on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 hardly stayed for four days with the petitioner and left the matrimonial home on her own volition. The petitioner was thus compelled to file two informatory petitions and one matrimonial case for divorce. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out against the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits, at the outset, that although the present application has been filed challenging the order taking cognizance but charges have already been framed vide order dated 20.09.2024. However, no interlocutory application challenging the said order has been filed in the present case. It has further been submitted that even in the First Information Report there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband and in any view of the matter, it is the husband who is primarily responsible for the welfare of the wife and it is he who has indulged in subjecting the opposite party no. 2 to cruelty in various ways. It has also been pointed out that earlier an order was passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court for paying maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 but the said payment was also never made by the petitioner even to show his bonafide. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has also apprised this Court of the fact that the petitioner is neither appearing in the maintenance proceedings and in the present case also he took the case for mediation and never appeared in the case thereafter. However, the same is objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and also considering the allegations in the First Information Report, it is gathered that there are specific allegations carved out as against the petitioner, which relates to making unlawful demand and also subjecting her to physical assault etc., thereby causing both mental and physical harassment to the opposite party no. 2. Moreover, at the stage of cognizance, the existence of only a prima facie case has to be looked into. However, the present stage of the case is that charges have also been framed but the same has not been challenged and the petitioner has also not showed any act of bonafide by either paying the amount fixed by a coordinate Bench of the Court which was rather challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which refused to interfere and only granted liberty to approach the High Court. In this backdrop also, in view of the rigid attitude of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner does not even warrant any sympathetic consideration.
This Court is conscious of the fact that in case of Section 498A IPC, where there are possibilities of disputes arising out of matrimonial discord, a sensitive approach towards resolution of disputes is desirable, but since no act of bonafide has ever been shown at the end of the petitioner, there is no question of even looking at the attending circumstances to grant any relief to the petitioner by invoking the inherent powers of this Court.
Moreover, the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 666 of 2022, does not suffer from any illegality and this Court does not feel in any way inclined to interfere with the same, so far as the present petitioner is concerned.
The application on behalf of the petitioner accordingly, stands dismissed and since charges have already been framed, the Court concerned may proceed with the trial of the petitioner.