AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
This application is being filed for quashing the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2175(c)/2016, through which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and husband of the complainant.
The Complainant/opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No. 2175(C)/2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 24.06.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 384, 420, 494, 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to complaint petition, complainant is the wife of accused no.1, accused no.2 is mother-in-law, accused no. 3 is the elder brother of accused no. 1 and accused No. 4 is the younger brother of accused no.1. The complainant married with petitioner under Hindu rites and rituals on 26th June, 1989 at Veterinary College, Patna, and marriage was registered under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Mumbai on 24.07.1998. The other allegations made in complaint petition at paragraph nos. 3 to 50 of Annexure-1 is details of event qua occurrence since marriage of O.P. No.2 till date. However, it does not speak about the any specific allegations against these petitioners.
It is stated that marriage of Seema Kumar and Manoj Kumar was performed in the year 1989, having a son Naman Kumar, a degree holder of London School of Economics. After about 28 years of marriage, the complainant filed this complaint case vide 2175(c)/2016, and on the basis of said concocted complaint, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance vide order dated 20.06.2017.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are in-laws, and facing very much general and omnibus allegation qua alleged mental and physical cruelty. It is further submitted that the matter now appears compromised between the parties, and considering the said aspects, the petition preferred by the husband of the O.P. No.2, namely, Manoj Kumar challenging the same cognizance order has already been quashed by one of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this court through Cr. Misc. No.3506 of 2019 dated 02.05.2023.
Arguing further, it is submitted that the present complaint case was filed out of ulterior and oblique motive to harass the petitioners being the parents and relatives of the husband of the O.P. No.2.
In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek versus State of Madhya Pradesh., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.
In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the petitioners are in-laws, and furthermore, the dispute between the parties has already been compromised, accordingly by taking note of the legal ratio as available through Abhishek Case (supra), the cognizance order dated 20.06.2017 as passed by S.D.J.M., Patna qua all above-named three petitioners are hereby set aside/quashed.
The present petition stands allowed.
Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.