Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1378 of 2012 ====================================================== Rakesh Singh Yadav @ Rakesh Singh, S/o Late Raja Ram Singh, Resident of Village-Sanapa, P.S.- Rajpur, District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Madan Singh Yadav, S/o Late Kesho Singh, R/o Nagpur, P.S. Rajpur, District-Nuxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Ms. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 18-10-2012 This quashing petition has been filed u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 15-11-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar by which and whereunder, he dismissed Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2011 affirming the order dated 16-07-2011 which is also under challenge in this quashing petition, passed by learned SDJM, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 459 (C) of 2009 corresponding to Trial No. 1299 of 2011 by which and whereunder, the petition u/S 245 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 459(C) of 2009 against the petitioner and six others alleging therein inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused, Dinesh Kumar Yadav on 17-02-2004 but at the time of marriage, Hero Honda motorcycle, colour T.V. and Rs 1.00.000/- in cash were demanded by family members of the groom but anyhow, he could manage Rs 51,000/- and after that, the marriage was solemnized. Furthermore, it is alleged that again, one accused, Baijnath Singh demanded one cow, motorcycle and colour T.V. as well as cash on later occasion. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 10-05-2005, the Gauna of his daughter was solemnized and accused, Dinesh Kumar Yadav took his daughter to his home giving threatening of dire consequences, if the above-said demand is not fulfilled. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons including the petitioner started torturing his daughter and the aforesaid fact was communicated to him by his daughter whereupon, he requested the accused persons to keep his daughter well. Furthermore, it is alleged that the petitioner whenever came to his home in holidays, he used to torture his daughter and lastly, on 08-1-2005, his daughter was ousted from her matrimonial home and after that, he filed the above-said complaint petition. The aforesaid complaint petition was inquired [STATUTE] itioner and other accused were put on trial. In course of trial, a petition u/S 245 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that he had been residing separately from husband of complainant’s daughter and as a matter of fact, he had no concern with the affairs of other accused rather he was posted at Itawa and resides at Itawa in connection with his service. The learned trial court heard on the aforesaid petition but rejected the aforesaid petition passing the order dated 16-07-2011 holding this fact that there was sufficient material against the petitioner to frame charges u/Ss 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The aforesaid order dated 16-07-2011 passed by learned SDJM, Buxar was challenged by the petitioner before learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 115 of 2011 but learned Sessions Judge too dismissed the aforesaid criminal revision passing the impugned order dated 15-11-2011 which has been challenged before this court in this quashing petition. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 who made his appearance through his counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner is elder brother of husband of complainant’s daughter and he is in service and resides at Itawa (U.P.) and she further submits that according to complaint case itself, the petitioner does not reside at his village and he occasionally comes to his village in holidays. She further submits that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. She took me through the contents of complaint petition and submits that there is allegation against the other accused that they demanded dowry and assaulted the complainant’s daughter but there is no even whisper against the petitioner in the complaint petition rather an omnibus and general allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred a decision reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta & another Vs The State of Jharkhand & another). In the said decision, it has been held by the Apex Court of this country that allegations to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, especially; against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the decision of Neelu Chopra & another Vs Bharati reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 in which, it has been held by the Apex Court of this country that for lodging a proper complaint, mere mentioning of relevant sections and language of those sections are not sufficient, particulars of offence committed by each accused and role played by them in committing that offence need to be stated. On the strength of both the above-said decisions, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner resides at Itawa and he oftenly visits the matrimonial home of complainant’s daughter and furthermore, there is nothing in the entire complaint petition as well as in the evidence of witnesses that any specific role had been played by the petitioner in committing the alleged o

Applicable IPC Section: 202

Statute Text:
Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code. Intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person legally bound to inform. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.