AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504 and 34 of I.P.C. in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2016/ G.R. No. 2908 of 2016.
As per the prosecution case, the informant was married to Vishwajit Kumar @ Babloo on 19.06.2010, according to Hindu rites and rituals. It has been alleged that during the hearing of a case, which arose due to demand of a motorcycle, in a family court, when the informant came out of the Court, the accused persons started to abuse her, harassed her and also assaulted her.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., a complaint case was lodged by the present informant on 08.04.2015, in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of I.P.C. It has further been submitted that prior to the filing of the said complaint, petitioner No. 1 had filed a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage bearing matrimonial case No. 54 of 2015, the said suit was admitted and notice was issued on 02.04.2015 and the said complaint, i.e., 585 of 2015, came to be filed on 08.04.2015, when the present informant came to know about the issuance of the notice in the divorce case. It has further been submitted that a maintenance case also came to be filed against petitioner No. 1 on 09.04.2015, and during continuation of the said proceeding of maintenance case, the F.I.R. has been lodged. It has further been submitted that from a plain reading of the F.I.R., no offence under Section 498A is made out and the present F.I.R. is nothing but a malicious and vexatious one so as to spite personal score. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal; reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and also referring to various categories, as discussed in paragraph No. 102 of the said judgment, that no offence against the petitioners is made out. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia vs. the State of Punjab; reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013, that the present F.I.R. was a retaliatory counter-blast and constitutes abuse of the process of the Court. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 737, that where the charge-sheet merely reproduces the F.I.R. allegations with nothing new added by the investigating agency indicates vexatious intent and no evidence was found to support the complaint and the charge-sheet has simply reproduced all the wordings of the complaint, while there is nothing new even after investigation. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, that the prosecution against petitioner No. 2, who happens to be the family member of petitioner No. 1, is malicious and vexatious one when there is general and omnibus allegation against him. It has further been submitted that continuation of present prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of Court in the backdrop of pending litigation between the parties. It has further been submitted that the order taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It has lastly been submitted that such prosecution, which is attended with malice and personal vendetta, should not be allowed to continue.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners have been found true during the course of investigation and charge-sheet came to be filed against them, moreover, the litigation pending between the parties goes to show that the informant/Opposite Party No.2 has been subjected to various criminal offence at all times and the order taking cognizance is good in law and facts and requires no interference.
Heard the parties and perused the record.
Considering the fact that there are serious litigation pending between the parties, when maintenance case, divorce case and 498A is pending between the parties, the present prosecution against the petitioners with such allegations, as leveled in the F.I.R., would amount to abuse of the process of Court, the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2017, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 315 of 2016/ G.R. No. 2908 of 2016 is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.