IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36363 of 2006 1. CHANDA DEVI, WIFE OF CHOUDHARY LALAN PRASAD SINHA. 2. CHOUDHARY LALAN PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE PARAS PRSAD SINHA. 3. VIJAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF CHOUDHARY LALAN PRASAD SINHA. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MURLIGANJ, KOSI PROJECT, POLICE STATION-MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. ……………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RENU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF RAVINDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILAGE MURLIGANJ, KOSI COLONY, POLICE STATION-MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. ……………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Uday Chand Prasad, Binod Kumar Sinha and Manoj Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Dinesh Prasad Verma and Brajesh Verma, Advocates. ------------ O R D E R The three petitioners who along with three others have been arrayed as accused in Complaint case no.398(C) of 2003 and happen to be the parents-in-law and devar respectively of the complainant have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.9.2004 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, whereby having taken cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and another he has discharged the remaining two for want of requisite materials. One Renu Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint case on 20.6.2003 inter alia stating that her 2 marriage with accused Sanjay Kumar Sinha was solemnized some 15-16 years ago and from the wedlock Sonali Kumari, now aged about 7 years, was born. It is alleged that shortly after her entry in the matrimonial home the initial cordiality extended to her by the husband, parents-in-law and other relatives suddenly underwent a marked transformation and she was tortured and subjected to cruelty over demand for dowry and for this her father, Ravindra Prasad, filed Complaint Case No.704 of 1990 against the accused persons which eventually, on the intervention of co-villagers and well wishers, was compromised and an ekrarnama was filed in court by the accused on 9.1.1991 to the effect that they would not misbehave with her in future and would do no wrong to her. Assured thereby she returned to the matrimonial home. However, it was detected that her husband with the support of accused nos.2 and 3 had fallen into bad company and had degenerated into a stigmatized figure and having obtained employment in Delhi began to live there and in due course he entered into an illicit relationship with a Muslim girl whom he brought home as a concubine and in this way the husband maintained only a shammy relationship with her. The complainant claimed to bear all such atrocities as a responsible wife in order to bring up the child. Her status in the matrimonial home was allegedly reduced to that of a maid servant and she was tortured in various ways and even her child was not treated properly. Eventually, on 17.6.2003 she alongwith her child were thrown out of the matrimonial home after confiscating all her belongings worth Rs.20,000/-. 3 It appears that attempts were made before this Court to reconciliate the matter and ample opportunities were given to the parties but the deadlock persisted. The primary ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed to any of the petitioners and that the complaint case has been filed on fabricated allegations only to harass and humiliate them. This would be apparent from the fact that there is no mention as to what had been demanded in dowry. It was further submitted that the complainant had cleverly concealed the real facts. In this connection, it was submitted that the complainant’s father with his associates had forcibly taken away Sanjay, the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 and got his daughter, Renu Devi, married to him whereafter Sanjay and Renu lived completely separate and had no concern with the petitioners. That as a matter of fact, the petitioners were so dejected with the forcible marriage that they did not permit the newly weds to enter their house which goaded the complainant’s father to threaten the petitioners for which petitioner no.2 filed Sanha No.671 of 1990 before the Sub Divisional Officer on 15.9.1990. In retaliation, the complainant’s father filed Complaint Case No.704 of 1990 on fake accusations but therein Renu Devi filed a petition denying the accusations of her being tortured for non payment of dowry and that her father had filed the complaint in confusion and the allegations were not true and accordingly the said complaint case was 4 compromised. Even Sanjay, the son, swore an affidavit on 12.7.1996 to the effect that he along with his wife and child lived separate from the petitioners after a partition and they had no concern with the petitioners. It was further submitted that the expertise of the complainant would be apparent from the fact that she later on filed Complaint Case No.444 of 2002 against her husband for offences under Sections 498-A, 380, 406, 504, 493 and 120-B I.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2004 for non prosecution. This notwithstanding the father of the complainant used to demand illegal money from the petitioners and on 19.6.2003 the complainant with her family members came to the house of the petitioners demanding money and on refusal they took away clothes, cash worth Rs.5000/-, watch, golden chain worth Rs.900/- tape-recorder etc. for which petitioner no.2 filed Complaint Case No.395(C) of 2003 wherein cognizance was taken under Sections 448, 452, 379, 323 I.P.C. as prima facie case was found to have been made out against the father and brothers of the complainant on 13.6.2004. O.P. No.2 has appeared but no show cause or written statement has been filed on her behalf. Only oral submissions have been made to justify the passing of the impugned order. Admittedly, on perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that there is no disclosure as to what particular item or items were demanded by way of dowry for the non payment whereof she was allegedly tortured and subjected to cruelty. It is also apparent from perusal of Annexure-6 that Complaint Case No.444 of 2002 filed by the 5 complainant was dismissed for non prosecution. The matter of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was one of the issues raised in the said complaint case and had the offence really taken place the complainant would have pursued the said complaint case with all vigours. Even otherwise, her husband himself had sworn and filed an affidavit to the effect that he alongwith his wife and child were living separate from the petitioners herein. That being the situation the petitioners obviously could not have been made liable for the offence alleged. The repeated filing of complaint cases by the complainant and her father only goes to show that all these efforts were only to cause harassment to the petitioners and apart from being vexatious discloses a concerted modus operandi to deprive the petitioners from living in peace. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 25th of June, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.