IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8837 of 2008 VEERESH KUMAR SINHA, SON OF SATYADEO NARAYAN SINHA @ RAMJI BABU, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CLUB ROAD, ARA NEAR PIR BABA MAZAR, P.S. NAWADA, DISTRICT ARRAH. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SARYU PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE RADHA KRISHNA LAL, RESIDENT OF PATHTHAR ROAD, MUSLIM GALI, SARISTABAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sri Ballabh Narayan Das, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. P.N. Shahi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate ----------- 5 6.5.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the victim girl. The victim girl‟s father instituted a case alleging that his daughter has been tortured for dowry by her in-laws and husband. Anupma and Ratnesh Kumar Sinha were married on 29.11.2002 at the residential house in Patna. The family of Ratnesh Kumar Sinha belongs to Arrah. On 4.12.2002 it was alleged that there was a demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 3,00,000/- and it is alleged that this petitioner also supported his father and demanded the said amount aforesaid and it is specifically alleged that the father-in-law refused to perform „Duragaman‟ until the amount was paid. Thereafter the „Duragaman‟ took place and the girl went to Arrah and it is alleged that she was tortured at Arrah by the entire family members. On 12.10.2003 the son of the informant went to Arrah to speak to the family members but with no effect and they continued to make the demand. It is said that Rs. 45,000/- was paid by the informant. On 9.11.2003 the informant‟s daughter and his son-in-law Ratnesh 2 Kumar Sinha left for Pune. It is alleged that at the Pune the torture continued at the hands of her husband. It is specifically alleged that Rs. 35,000/- was paid on 13.12.2003 and on 14.12.2003 Anupma‟s father-in- law took the money to Pune. This amount was for the purposes of buying a motorcycle. The money fell shot by Rs. 6,000/- and as such it was deposited in the Bank account of this petitioner. On 12.11.2004 the couple returned to Arrah, where again it is alleged that she was tortured by the family members. On 29.11.2005 Sanjeev Kumar, Anupma‟s brother went to Pune and found his sister in a bad condition and thus he brought her back to Patna. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 13.1.2006, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna on the ground that the Court at Patna does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear this matter as the demand was made either at Arrah or from Pune and the torture was also meted out at Arrah and Pune and no part of the occurrence took place at Patna. It is also contended that even on facts no case is made out against the petitioner who is not directly connected with either the torture or the demand. I shall only discuss the merits of the allegations vis a vis the petitioner, in view of the fact that I do not find that there is a substantial case made out against the petitioner for the reasons set down below. On reading of the entire complaint petition, it appears that there is an omnibus allegation against the family members of the husband Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, that they supported demand of dowry. It has been highlighted that Rs. 6,000/- was deposited in the account of Veeresh 3 Kumar Sinha. On the other hand from the complaint petition it is clear that the money was meant for purchase of a motorcycle which was handed over by the father-in-law to Ratnesh Kumar Sinha. The mere fact that part of the money was deposited in the account of Veeresh Kumar Sinha does not indicate that the money was meant for him or that he had made the demand as it is clearly stated in the complaint petition that “blij ge mijksDr vius yM+dksa lq/khj dqekj] lqnhi dqekj] latho dqekj ,oa lk{kh lqjs’k dqekj flUgk] lquhy dqekj ds lkFk vkjk tkdj vius le/kh lR;nso ukjk;.k flUgk mQZ jketh ckcq dks viuh yM+dh dh ftUnxh cpkus gsrq ncko esa 35]000@& :i;k fnukad 13@12@2003 dks fn, rc fnukad 14@12@2003 dks gekjs le/kh :i;k ysdj iquk x,A fQj esjs nkekn iquk ls Qksu fd, fd vkSj :i;k ’kh?kz ns nsaA” Reference has been made to the case diary and particularly counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred to the letters written by Anupma Kumari to her father which are part of the diary. The first letter is dated 8.4.2004 and the second letter is dated 10.11.2004. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire letter is accepted as correct, the only material that has come in the case diary is that whenever the petitioner spoke to Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, her husband used to behave badly with her. In the case diary there is no direct allegation that Veeresh Kumar Sinha had ever spoken to Anupma Kumari or ever made a demand from her or nor is there specific allegation that he inflicted any torture on Anupma Kumari when she was in Arrah, where the petitioner lived. It is also alleged that when Anupma got a job Veeresh Kumar Sinha is said to have told his brother that the salary which she receives also belongs to her husband‟s family although the petitioner never spoke 4 to her directly on the phone and as such it appears that this not even heresay evidence cannot be taken into account for holding the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged. She also alleges that Veeresh Kumar Sinha had asked her to get the money fast as he required it for his job and to buy a house. This allegation is levelled in a letter. She does not disclose in the said letter that as to when the demand was made. All these facts are unbelievable and have obviously been made to some how involve each and every members of the family. This letter was sent to her father on 10.5.2004. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, It is stated that the petitioner was also responsible for making a demand or torturing her. This Court finds the allegation absurd and unbelievable. It is an admitted fact that Veeresh Kumar Sinha does not live with the married couple and that he had never visited Pune. As far as the allegations at Arrah are concerned, they are omnibus in nature. On the basis of an absurd story which is the letter dated 10.5.2004, it is alleged that he made a demand which according to this Court is unsubstantiated by any other material in the case diary or for that matter in the First Information Report or along the case of the prosecution is that the demand was being made for the husband. It is not the case of the informant that the demand was being made for Veeresh Kumar Sinha. It has been clearly stated that the father-in-law and the husband demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- and a motorcycle. It has been noticed by this Court that in all cases filed under Section 498A the victim and the family members in their over enthusiasm, more often than not, involve the entire family in the case. In 5 their anxiety to bring home the allegations they rop the entire family members whether or not they are concerned with the offence. Section 498A speaks of a woman who is subjected to cruelty by the husband or any of the family members. There is not a single word said about this petitioner meting out any physical abuse to Anupma Kumari. The demand made after marriage is for the purpose of satisfying the greed of the husband or the immediate family i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in- law. It is seldom meant to for the purposes of fulfilling the demands of the brother, sister and other relatives of the family. In such cases it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow the criminal proceeding to continue with respect to the persons who are not directly involved of the said offence. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 that the allegations should be specific to rope a particular member of the family of the husband against whom torture and demand is alleged. In the facts of this case, I find that no offence is made out against the petitioner Veeresh Kumar Sinha and as such the order of cognizance dated 13.1.2006, passed in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 926 of 2004 pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna is quashed as far as it concerns the petitioner. The question of territorial jurisdiction, if raised may be considered by this Court in the case of other accused persons as it is not very relevant in facts of the present case. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)