IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17323 of 2007 1. NIRMLA DEVI , W/o Sri Tota Ram 2. Tota Ram, S/o Ram Jatan Das, Both r/o of Mohalla Naya Gawn Chali Tal, P.S. Alamganj, District – Patna. 3. Dilip Kumar/ son of Sri Lallu Das, R/o of Mohala Gurki Mandi P.S. Alamganj, District – Patna. … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Prem Lata Devi, D/o Late Chotay Lal Rani Das, R/ o Mohalla Padari Ki Havli Near Electric Office Lane, P.S. Khajekalan, District – Patna. …. Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P For O.P. No. 2 :Mr. Tilak Sao, Advocate ORDER The three petitioners herein who along with three others have been made to figure as accused in Alamgunj P.S. Case No. 133 of 1995 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 21.2.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patnacity, whereby he has rejected their petition under section 239 Cr.P.C. praying for their discharge. The informant, one Prem Lata Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, lodged a written complaint before the Officer Incharge, Womens’ Cell, Kotwali at Patna, which on being forwarded, the aforesaid Alamganj P.S. case was registered under section 498A/34 I.P.C. and 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It was stated therein inter alia that her marriage with Ashok Kumar of Gur Ki Mandi, Alamganj, - 2 - Patna was solemnized on 6.5.1989 and the first two years of the marriage spent in the matrimonial home was full of bliss and cordiality. However, thereafter, the attitude and conduct of the accused persons suddenly underwent a change and she was repeatedly asked to bring dowry in the form of cash and for this she was also subjected to cruelty. Her brother, on receipt of information from her came over to reason with the accused persons but both she and her brother were assaulted and thrown out of the house with a threat that unless she brought with her Rs. 25000/- she would not be welcome in the matrimonial home. It is said that at the relevant time she was seven months pregnant. It is also said that ever since she had been residing in her parental home. In between she made several attempts to enter the matrimonial home but on each occasion she was abused and assaulted and shown the door as the demand had remained unfulfilled. Eventually on 4.6.1995 when she accompanied by her brother and a few others went to the matrimonial home with a request to allow her to stay therein all the accused persons forcibly pushed her away and threatened the gentry accompanying her never to come again or else they would be killed. Her brother-in-law (devar), Dilip Kumar is alleged to have assaulted her on several occasions. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been implicated as accused in complete abuse of the process of law merely because petitioner no. 1 was the married sister of the husband of the informant and petitioner no. 2 happened to be her husband. It was also submitted that the falsity of the case was writ large from the - 3 - fact that while the informant states that the petitioners were residing along with the other accused in the matrimonial home of the informant in Mohalla Gur Ki Manid, it was abundantly clear from their address as disclosed in the instant application that they reside at a separate place in Naya Gaon Chali Tali though within the area of the same police station. It is further submitted that the entire allegations are generalized and omnibus in nature and no specific over act along with date and time have been pleaded against any of the accused. Even the allegation against petitioner no. 3 is bald and omnibus without citing any specific instances. A counter affidavit has been filed by O.P. No. 2 wherein she has only reiterated her case as made out in her written complaint. An additional ground which was sought to be agitated is the non – cooperation by the accused which had led to the pendency of the case for such a long period. Here again she is careful not to divulge as to what was the nature of non – cooperation by the accused. In the circumstances of the instant case it would only be apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2005) 3 SCC 507. The Apex Court taking notice of the fact that bald allegations had been made against the sister – in – law, living separately, which seemed to suggest the anxiety of the complainant to rope in as many relations of the husband. Accordingly, the Apex Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no justification to relegate her to the ordeal of a criminal trial and quashed the proceedings. - 4 - In view of the discussions made above and the facts and circumstances of the case I find no palpable reason to differ from the conclusions arrived by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance so far as the petitioners herein are concerned is quashed and the application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 12th of November, 2008 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)