AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026 Both Cr. Misc. applications have arisen out of the same occurrence and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by passing this common order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
The instant applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 1426(C) of 2016, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the allegation, the complainant was married to co-accused Rajdeep Singh @ Depu Singh in the year 2011. Thereafter, the co-accused persons including the petitioners started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry and she was being tortured for the non-fulfillment of the same. It has further been alleged that the complainant became pregnant and the mother-in-law of the complainant told her that a sonography of the complainant would be done, and if a male child is confirmed to have been conceived, then they would retain it, otherwise, if the gender of the unborn child turns out to be female then she would be aborted. The complainant did not agree to the said sonography and the same was never conducted. Thereafter, she returned to her paternal house where a girl child namely, Shaijal @ Tullu was born who is currently four years old. It has further been alleged that the husband was married previously to one Rinki Devi @ Maya and there was a girl child born out of the said wedlock and the said fact was concealed at the time of performance of marriage with the complainant. It has further been alleged that, on 03.07.2016, the accused persons, including the present petitioner, assaulted the victim and poured kerosene oil over her. However, she was saved when an alarm was raised.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are younger brother-in-law (devar) and younger sister-in-law (devrani) of the complainant in Cr. Misc. no. 39666 of 2018 while, the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively in Cr. Misc. No. 26409 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and the complainant has developed matrimonial strains with her husband. It has further been submitted that the dispute has essentially arisen on account of matrimonial discord between the husband and the wife. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners, and no specific overt act has been attributed to any of them. It has further been submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners are attended with malice, personal vendetta and to settle a personal score. It has further been submitted that it is a well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and thus it has been submitted that mere allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the relatives of the husband are general, vague and omnibus in nature, without specific allegations of an overt act, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that the petitioners have actively participated in the commission of the offence against the complainant. The parents-in-law of the complainant are allegedly disposing of the property without providing any compensation or share therein to the complainant or her minor female child. It has further been submitted that the order taking cognizance is well reasoned and no interference is required as prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
From perusal of the record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, moreover, they are vague and considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta and Anr.v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 03.11.2016 as against the petitioners is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are confined solely to the adjudication and disposal of the present case and shall not prejudice or affect the rights and contentions of the parties in any other proceedings before any forum.
Accordingly, the applications stand allowed.