AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Buxar in connection with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023, G.R. No. 1501 of 2023, whereby cognizance was taken u/s 323, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The present FIR arises out of a typed application of the informant/opposite party no. 2 wherein, she has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and also the other family members by pressurizing her to get the ditch filled in the land, which was given to the accused persons by her father and also for non-fulfillment of dowry.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petitioners happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and the allegations as against them in the FIR are totally general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the allegations are so petty in nature relating to getting the ditch in the land filled with mud by the father of the opposite party no. 2 and also putting some pressure for getting a house made, which would hardly constitute an offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and it also cannot be brought within the ambit of the explanation of cruelty that has been given under Section 498(A) of the IPC.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the allegations are, to some extent, specific against the husband of the opposite party no. 2 against whom, there are allegations of pressurizing the opposite party no. 2 and at one point of time, also making an allegation of trying to kill her. However, with regard to the other accused persons, including the petitioners, there is a general and sweeping allegation of conspiracy.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the present application and has submitted that the FIR as also the materials collected during investigation provide ample materials for taking of cognizance against the present petitioners also and as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned.
I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR as also the order impugned. The narration of facts as disclosed in the FIR, which is a typed application to the Officer-in-charge, disclosed general, omnibus and sweeping allegations against all the accused persons with some specific allegations on the husband of the opposite party no. 2. This Court has also noticed that the word ‘torture/cruelty’ in the FIR has been used in a very loose fashion by relating it to pressurizing her for the purposes of filling of mud in the land and for asking her father to get a house constructed. The requirements for bringing the allegations within the purview of the explanation of cruelty as elucidated in Section 498(A) of the IPC, are not fulfilled as there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry and further, no such act has been committed with her by these petitioners in order to drive her to a situation where she was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. It is also within the notice of this Court that the allegations, to some extent, have been made specifically against the husband and the specific allegation of ousting her is also against her husband.
The Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has deprecated the practice of implicating the entire family members of the husband of the informant in a criminal case under Section 498(A) of the IPC, when matter arise out of matrimonial discord behind the husband and the wife.
From the entire FIR, no specific allegation can be carved out as against these petitioners to make them liable for a criminal prosecution under Section 498(A) of the IPC.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also having in mind, the settled legal proposition with regard to false implication and over-implication of the family members of the husband of the informant, which practice has been strongly deprecated, this Court finds no justification in allowing the prosecution to continue against these petitioners, who happens to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 with no specific allegations carved out as against them keeping in mind the law laid down in Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. The State of Telangana reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, continuance of criminal proceedings against these petitioners, who are relatives of the husband of the O.P. No. 2, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Buxar in connection with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023, G.R. No. 1501 of 2023, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed/set aside.
The present application filed on behalf of the petitioners is accordingly allowed.