Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9599 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Rajiv Kumar Rajak @ Chhote Lal Baitha 2. Shivji Baitha 3. Shyam Bahadur Baitha, all sons of late Gajadhar Baitha. 4. Sugandhi Devi, wife of Rajiv Kumar Rajak 5. Umrauti Devi, wife of Harilal Baitha, all resident of Village-Chainpur Chakua, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Reeta Devi, w/o Aman Kumar Baitha alias Shatrughan Baitha, D/O Hari Rajak, resident of Village- Munger Road Charch Gali, Badi Dariyapur, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, Mr. Asoka Jan Bahadur, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 6 26-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the oerder dated 21.8.2009 passed in Jamalpur P.S. Case No.70 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] and sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. From the First Information Report it appears that one Reeta Devi, opposite party no.2, was married with Aman Kumar Baitha on 9.6.2002 according to Hindu rites. At the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9599 of 2011 (6) dt.26-11-2012 2 time of marriage her brother gave ornaments utensils as gift and a cash of Rs.10,000/- with a draft of Rs.20,000/- including A.T. Boxer motorcycle was also given to the husband. After stay of 20 days at her Sasural she came back to her Maike with her brother. When she again back to her Sasural all the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry and also alleged that her in-laws demanded a colour T.V., Washing Machine and Freeze etc. and on refusal the accused persons assaulted her with foot and shoes. With the help of local people she was saved, she could return to her Maike and later on she filed a complaint to Rajya Mahila Ayog. It has further been alleged that at the instance of her in-laws when she returned to her Sasaural she found her husband was married with another girl having a child. On the question being asked from the side of opposite party no.2, husband along with Bhaishur and Jethani replied, as she did not bring Rs.50,000/- as dowry Aman Kumar was married to another girl Parmila and under coercion they wanted to obtain signature on stamp paper, on refusal they tried their best to set ablaze the opposite party no.2. There is allegation that her husband, namely, Aman Kumar Baitha tried to strangulate her with the help of her second wife and pressed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9599 of 2011 (6) dt.26-11-2012 3 the complainant on the ground. On raising alarm persons of the locality came and saved her life. 4. Even after notice to opposite party no.2 she did not choose to appear in the case and as such this Court is deciding this case without assistance from the side of opposite party no.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is completely a malicious prosecution as late Lalita Devi has been added as an accused who had died 20 years earlier to the marriage of opposite party no.2 which itself indicates the mind set of opposite party no.2 to implicate all the family members in the case. He further submits that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are brother-in-laws whereas petitioner nos. 4 to 6 are Jethani and there is no allegation whatsoever specifically against these petitioners. If the statement made in the First Information Report be taken to be true no specific allegation has been made against these petitioners. So much so they have no connection with the family of opposite party no.2. He further submits that present case is completely malicious against the petitioners and liable to be quashed. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9599 of 2011 (6) dt.26-11-2012 4 reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 3363 has taken note of the fact, it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication has become affair of the day. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra): “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. 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 scrutinised with great care and circumspection.” Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9599 of 2011 (6) dt.26-11-2012 5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vrs. State of U.P. and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012 paragraph nos. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 a

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.