Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3868 of 2010 (3) dt.23-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3868 of 2010 ====================================================== Sujit Kumar, son of Late Markenday Lal Das, Resident of Flat No.2, Plot No.36, Apache Apartments, C-Wing, Sector-20, Chikhali, Pune-411019. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rupa Kumari, son of Shri Arun Kumar, W/o Ajit Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-Nim Chawk, Banglowgurh, P.S.-L.NM.U. District- Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M. Rab, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 23-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. In spite of having personal service against Opposite Party No.2 she failed to turn up. Petitioner who is brother-in-law (Devar) of Opposite Party No.2 had also been dragged in connection with LNMU P.S. Case No.155/2008 registered 498A IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act along with others wherein after concluding investigation charge sheet was submitted and on the basis thereof, vide order dated 29-10-2009 cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 498A, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken and the petitioner along with others accordingly been summoned to face trial. It has been submitted that on behalf of petitioner that now a days it has become a fashion so far cases under Section 498A is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3868 of 2010 (3) dt.23-07-2012 concerned to implicate all the family member even though having no concern with the affair of spouses out of revengeful action. That means to say a proceeding under [STATUTE] now a days happens to be a malafide one by dragging the persons who should not have. Now coming to the fact in hand it has been submitted that only vague allegation with regard to presence of petitioner at Patna has been shown where the complainant was taken away by her one of Jethani and Bhaisur Rabindra Kumar. No allegation of any kind or the part played by him during her stay at Patna has been incorporated to justify involvement of petitioner during commission of the crime so alleged. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that whatsoever occurrence as alleged had taken place that happens to be within the jurisdiction of Patna as well as at Delhi where her husband had taken her away and not within the jurisdiction of Darbhanga where the case has been instituted. So submitted that these infirmities are sufficient to infer that petitioner only on account of being family member, has purposely been dragged. At the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that now a days it has become a social menace wherein a girl is being subjected a commodity at her Sasural and is being used as a milching cow for procurement / satisfaction of undesired lust / greed of the Sasuralwala. The Status of other family members and the allegation cast against them has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3868 of 2010 (3) dt.23-07-2012 Court times without number. In a decision reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, it has been held in para-9 as well as 10 as follows: “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants”. In the aforesaid background when the allegation has been gone through certainly gives an impression regarding application of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the background of the fact that there happens to be no specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to his complicity during course of alleged occurrence. Consequent thereupon the order impugned to the extent of petitioner is set aside. Thus, petition is allowed. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.