Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12717 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Suraiya Khatoon wife of late S.M. Ahsan, resident of Village- Amrat, P.S.-Jamui, District-Jamui. 2. Sufia Khatoon, wife of Samiuddin, resident of Village-Bhattha, P.S.-Kashichak, District-Nawada. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Rajia Khatoon daughter of late Parvez Akhtar, resident of Village-Katni Kole, P.S. & District-Sheikhpura. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 17-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional P.P. for the State. 2. In spite of having personal service of summon, opposite party no. 2 did not chose to appear. 3. Petitioners have challenged order dated 12.01.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint Case No. 336-C of 2009 (Rajia Khatoon Vs. Mojahid Azam & Ors.), whereby and whereunder the learned lower court took cognizance for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for that summoned the petitioners including one other. 3. The case in brief as per complaint happens to be the complainant, Rajia Khatoon, was married with Mohajid Azam Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12717 of 2010 (3) dt.17-07-2012 2/5 in the year 2006 according to ‘Muslim’ sect. During her stay at her ‘Sasural’, there was demand of fridge and motorcycle and for that she was regularly mal-treated at the hands of accused persons who lastly depredate her ornaments, belonging on 20.03.2007 her husband forced her to get down from a train at Sheikhpura station from where she had gone to her ‘Naihar’. 4. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that in ‘Muslim’ law there is no presumption of jointness nay the family remains joint. Petitioner No. 1, is old ailing mother-in-law and is residing separately from family of complainant and her husband since long and petitioner no. 2 resides at her ‘Sasural’ has purposely been dragged by way of revenge. The real fact is that the husband of complainant remains outside and his present location is not known to the petitioners. The complainant and her Naiharwala also searched out but could not know whereabout of her husband and on being frustrated, got this case filed implicating the petitioners for their no fault. Apart from this, there happens to be no specific allegation attributed against the petitioners. 5. At the other hand the learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that for the purpose of summoning of accused at the stage of 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only a prima facie case has to be seen. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12717 of 2010 (3) dt.17-07-2012 3/5 6. Nowadays the Courts are perceiving that in so many cases the application of [STATUTE] is being misused by way of implicating all the family members, who have got no concern with the affair, by way of revenging action. Ordinarily, the stage under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be interfered because of the fact that no roaming enquiry is permissible at this stage nor the evidence so collected at this stage is to be viewed through that angle. Because of the fact that present scenario consists of litigation amongst the spouses wherein petitioners also been victimized without having any sort of allegation of active involvement, and this trend of prosecution happens to be subject of scrutiny as reported in (2010) 7 SCC page 667 paras 32, 34, 35 and 39 (Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.), which is quoted as under:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under [STATUTE] are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12717 of 2010 (3) dt.17-07-2012 4/5 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 39. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in the preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.” 7. In light of aforesaid principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court when the matter in hand has been taken into consideration, witness, Javed Akhtar, who happens to be bro

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.