AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 28-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 01.06.2016, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in Complaint Case No.1187 of 2015, Tr. No. 983 of 2016, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of complainant/opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with Shashi Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Kumar on 24.02.2015, according to the Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage the father of the complainant had gifted a cash of Rs.75,000.00, a buffalo and utensils etc. It has further been alleged that when the complainant went to her matrimonial house, the accused persons started demanding Rs. 60,000.00, a motorcycle and colour T.V. and for non-fulfillment of the the said demand, they started torturing her and on 10.04.2015 at 05:00 PM, she was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house and her jwellery was also retained. It has further been alleged that despite intervention by panch, she was not taken back to her matrimonial house and the accused persons remained adamant on their demand.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, while petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 3 happens to be the brother-in-law respectively of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that prior to lodging of the present case, petitioner No. 1 has lodged Raniganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2015 on 22.04.2015, against the father of the complainant and other accused persons and in retaliation the present complaint case came to be lodged on 14.05.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the present prosecution is nothing, but a vexatious and malicious one.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2024) 6 S.C.R. 129, Nitin Ahluwalia Vs. the State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, to submit that there is growing tendency to falsely implicate the relatives and other family members of the husband of the complainant/informant in a case of matrimonial discord on general, omnibus and vague allegations, which amounts to abuse of the process of the court and, thus, prosecution against them should not continue.
It has further been submitted that in its judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed deep concern about growing tendency of naming all the relatives of the husband in Section 498A IPC FIRs as a matter of course.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and has referred to category No. 7, as discussed in paragraph 102 thereof, and has, thus, submitted that the present allegation against the petitioners is vexatious and malicious one out of personal vendetta and the proceedings against them should not continue.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has further submitted that petitioners have tortured the complainant for non-fulfillment of dowry demand along with the husband and a prima facie case has been found against them. The order taking cognizance is a well reasoned one and requires no interference.
Heard the parties and perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the present case was lodged as a way of counter blast to the case lodged by petitioner No. 1, there happens to be general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners as also taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed above, the present prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2016, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in Complaint Case No.1187 of 2015, Tr. No. 983 of 2016, as against the petitioners only, is hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.