CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15719 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1. Deepak Kumar Deep, S/o – Sri Sachidanand Yadav, 2. Sachidanand Yadav, S/o – Late basudeo Prasad Yadav, 3. Shanti Devi, Wife of Sri Sachidanand Yadav, 4. Kundan Yadav, S/o – Sri Sachidanand Yadav All resident of Mohalla Koratbari Madhubani, P.S. K.Hat, District – Purnia. 5. Guru Prasad Yadav, S/o – late Sahdeo Yadav 6. Kanti Devi, wife of Sri Guru Prasad Yadav, Both resident of village – Parsa, P.S. – Raniganj, District – Araria. -----------Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Seema Kumari, wife of Deepak Kumar Deep, daughter of Sri Bishundeo Yadav, of village Maranga, P.S. – K.Hat, District – Purnia. -------Opposite Parties. ******** For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opp.Party : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv. Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP. ********* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ********* Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the six petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 20.01.2006 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 162/2005 by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, confirming order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Sri R.S. Sukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea, taking cognizance for offences under section 498A of 2 the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 1849/2004. 3. The relevant facts of the case is that petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 were married on 06.12.2001 and they started leading marital life at the place of petitioners where petitioner nos. 5 and 6 in spite of being a distant relation as Mausa and Mausi of petitioner no.1 were also residing. After two years of the marriage, when as alleged, petitioners came to know that father of the complainant is going to be retired, so they started persuading complainant to share in the retrial benefit in the shape of a Maruti Car for her husband petitioner no.1 and trouble started thereafter. In the month of October 2004 as alleged crossing all limits of torture petitioner no.1 attempted to press neck of the complainant, on hue and cry some persons arrived, one of them informed her father subsequently he also arrived but the complainant was forced to leave the house. In the month of December 2004 complainant received a notice from the District Court Purnea, regarding filing of Matrimonial Suit No. 36/2004 seeking dissolution of marriage at the hands of petitioner no.1 only thereafter she lodged the complaint wherein after recording statement of witnesses besides complainant on Solemn Affirmation cognizance was taken giving rise to filing of Cr. Rev. No. 162/2005 before learned Sessions Judge, who at the admission stage itself dismissed the Revision petition giving rise to instant case. 4. As per learned counsel for the petitioners no 3 case is made out for the offence under section 498A I.P.C. but only by way of retaliation of filing Matrimonial Suit mainly on the ground of desertion and cruelty almost since beginning of the marriage present complaint has been filed with exonerated allegations. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the orders of the court below submitted that the averments made in the complaint petition besides the evidence on record and sufficient to indicate commission of offence, all the petitioners carry specific allegations. 5. Undisputedly, petitioner no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 whereas his parents and brother respectively petitioners 2, 3 and 4 and his Mausa and Mausi are petitioners nos. 5 and 6 who as per averments made in the complaint petition are residing with remaining petitioners, this fact stands unrebutted. 6. On going through the complaint petition it appears that as per assertions of the complainant opposite party no.2 everything was normal for two years or a bit more but only after smelling retirement of her father from service in return getting handsome amount, the trouble started, and she was being pressurized to get a Maruti Car for her husband so that he may improve his reputation and career as a L.I.C. Agent but due to being overburden and having four more daughters for marriage it was not possible for her parents to oblige. There is 4 general allegation of torture by way of not providing proper food against rest of the petitioners. Of course, in one paragraph, there is a vivid averment that they also started assaulting but without any further detail, of course, in para 12 of the complaint petition there is specific allegation against husband petitioner no.1 that he started putting pressure on her neck in order to kill her. 7. The husband has pious responsibility to take care of his wife but as asserted instead of discharging his obligation he started creating trouble and torture just to fulfill his demand and share in the retirement benefit of father of the complainant. He appears now has filed Matrimonial Case No. 36/2004 well in advance (in view of the averments in the complaint petition) and filed the same on 23.08.2004 itself, alleging cruelty and desertion but perhaps taking into consideration future suitability no date except date of marriage has been mentioned in the entire Matrimonial Application which is on record as Annexure – 2, and undisputedly summons of the case has been served upon opposite party no.2 the complainant, who though in the complaint petition admits receiving of summons and making the same as immediate cause for filing of the complaint petition. As earlier, she was expecting some resolution in spite of being thrown out of the house at the hands of the petitioners but in her examination on Solemn Affirmation towards end she also started her ignorance 5 about filing of any case by her husband giving room to the learned counsel for the petitioners to submit that she appears to be only a signatory on the complaint petition without going through any averments but one may also presume that line of her statement on Solemn Affirmation may be a clerical error or error committed by her under pressure of litigation and worries of future prospects. 8. As stated earlier there is nothing but general allegation against rest of the petitioners 2 to 6 and one may not ignore the rising trend of making accused in such type of cases. All members of the family of the husband even distant relatives residing at different place having no concern are also not spared just to put pressure upon husband side to come at the terms may or may not be dictated by other side. This view of mine finds support from the decision of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4684 of 2009 Preeti Gupta & Another Versus State of Jharkhand & Another; wherein in para 30 it is stated that: “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC 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 6 genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter o serious concern. Subsequently in para 35 of the Judgment (supra) it appears that “35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. -------” 9. Taking into consideration all such aspects and general allegation against rest of the petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 6, the impugned order are quashed and application stands allowed to the extent concerned with them, but dismissed for petitioner no.1, i.e. husband, proceeding before the court below shall continue in accordance with law with respect to him. Patna High Court Date : The 15th September 2010 Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)