Rakhi Singh & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

The petitioners have filed the present application praying therein for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prayer on behalf of the petitioner No.5, Rakesh Singh, the husband of the informant, was previously withdrawn by order dated 01.11.2018.

As per the allegation, the marriage of the informant was solemnized with one Rakesh Singh on 28.11.2012, according to Hindu rites and rituals, at the time of marriage Rs. 10 Lakh was given by way of RTGS and Demand Draft apart from diamond ring, gold chain and furniture worth Rs. 8 Lakhs as dowry. The informant had also given diamond and gold jewelry sets worth Rs. 10 Lakh. It is further alleged that initially the informant was taken to her matrimonial house but thereafter she was taken to Navi Mumbai. After reaching Mumbai all the petitioners herein started torturing her for the reason that they were not given expected dowry and asked for a Honda City car and Rs. 10 Lakh, whereupon the father and brother of the informant went there and told that they are not capable of meeting out their demand. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant was kept confined in a small room and her husband, who was having affairs with many girls used to chat with them and everyday came back home in a drunken condition and tortured her. She somehow managed to stay there in the prevailing condition in a hope that thing will improve, however, when there was no improvement she was brought to her parental house by her brother, whereafter, she gave birth to a girl child who was suffering from thyroid since birth because of the mental stress the informant had undergone during her pregnancy. It has further been alleged that after sometime, a Panchayti was held and the parents in law of the informant assuring of proper treatment took her to Mumbai, however, after sometime, they again started torturing her and confined her in the house and despite persuasion by the family members of the informant there was no improvement in the treatment meted out to her and finally on 11.04.2017, the informant came back to her parental house however, the accused persons retained all her jwellery threatening that if she will come back she will be killed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 happens to be the married sister-in-law, while petitioner No. 2 happens to be the brother-in-law, i.e., husband of the petitioner No. 1, and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the informant. It has further been submitted that there happens to be a general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the entire occurrence took place in Mumbai within the state of Maharashtra and only part of the same took place within the jurisdiction of district Court at Chapra. It has further been submitted, referring to the Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C., that it is hit by jurisdictional error. It has further been submitted that only part, which took place within Chapra district jurisdiction, is that the parents-in-law, who happens to be the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, came to the parental house of the informant and took her to Mumbai where she was tortured, wherein, petitioner No. 2 played active role. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, that dragging into criminal prosecution the family members of the husband, who were not living in the matrimonial house and were not having any connection to the matter and there being no specific allegation against them would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, as also in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr; reported in [2024] 6 S.C.R. 129, and in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, and has, thus, submitted that the general and omnibus allegation against the family members of the husband of the informant/complainant out of matrimonial discord without any specific allegation should be quashed as there is growing tendency to falsely implicate the entire family members who stay away from the husband and the victim, out of matrimonial disputes.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the husband of the informant is regularly paying an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which has been ordered by the Court concerned in the domestic violence proceeding. It has further been submitted that the order taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and the continuation of the present prosecution as against them would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, and has submitted that issuing of summons to an accused is a serious matter, it casts a duty on the Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint and to the materials available before him and must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate must not issue process against the accused without applying the mind separately to the alleged role of that accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 618, that where a charge-sheet despite completing the investigation, still fails to attribute any specific act to a named accused, it cannot sustain prosecution against that person. Criminal liability is individual and must be grounded in specific conduct. Collective naming without individuated culpability, is an abuse of the process against the unspecified accused.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is well reasoned and does not require any interference as from the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation and the charge-sheet, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the petitioners also actively participated with the husband of the informant in the commission of offence against the informant.

Heard the parties and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgments referred to herein above, the prosecution against the petitioners does not appear to be sustainable in view of lack of jurisdiction, general and omnibus nature of the allegation against them and keeping in view the settled principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred above, the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017, against the petitioner Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 is hereby quashed. However, further proceedings with respect to co-accused Rakesh Singh may continue.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.