AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
By order dated 26.10.2018, this application as regards the husband of the complainant (petitioner No. 1, namely, Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar) was permitted to be withdrawn upon the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners.
This application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.05.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 377(C) of 2016 by the learned A.C.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara, whereby and whereunder cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.
As per the allegation, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar in the year 27.05.2011 and after living for some time peacefully in the matrimonial home, the complainant was tortured for demand of dowry in the form of Nano Car and gold chain. It has further been alleged that the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.
It is relevant to state that the petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the mother-in-law while petitioner No. 5 is the sister-in-law (gotni) respectively of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, while there is general and omnibus allegations against petitioners No. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are vague, general and omnibus in nature without any specific overt act against them.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has vehemently opposed the application filed on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has further submitted that although the petitioners are family members, but they have actively participated in the commission of the offence against the complainant. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that the parents-in-law of the complainant used to advice the husband to make a demand for dowry from the complainant and to torture her for non-fulfillment of the same. It has further been submitted that efforts for mediation between the parties failed as the husband did not cooperate in the mediation proceedings.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Perusal of the records suggests that there is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments rendered in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 as well as in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it has been held that where allegations under Section 498A IPC against the relatives of husband are vague, general and omnibus in nature without specific allegation of any overt act, continuance of criminal proceedings amounts to gross abuse of process of the court.
Considering the fact that the allegations are vague and general in nature and taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek v. State of M.P., reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666 and in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), the proceedings as against the petitioners (petitioners No. 2 to 5) arising out of Complaint Case No. 377(C) of 2016 are liable to be quashed. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 02.05.2016 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 IPC passed in Complaint Case No. 377(C) of 2016, by the learned A.C.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara, so far as it relates to the petitioners (petitioners No. 2 to 5) is hereby quashed. However, further proceedings with respect to co-accused Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar, the husband of the complainant, may continue without being prejudiced by the observations made in this application.
This application accordingly stands allowed.