IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43840 of 2007 1. Binita Devi, W/o Sri Pramod Kumar 2. Navita Devi, W/o Sanjay Kumar Bhagat. 3. Madhu Kumari, W/o Mangal Prasad. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Purnima Kumari, W/o Arvind Kumar Bhagat @ Tuntun Bhagat. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Alamdar Hussain. Mr. S. Asgher Najmi. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P. For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi. --------- 3/ 12.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2. The petitioners, who are the married sisters of the husband, question the rejection of their application for discharging the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case no. 973/2001 sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. registered as Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 104/2001 under Section 406, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits from the allegations in the complaint itself that the petitioners no.1 and 2 were already married, residing at their matrimonial home at Sitamarhi and Araria. Petitioner no.3 has also since then been married and is residing in her own matrimonial home. The allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus while they are more specific against the husband and other family members. The petitioners are generally referred to in 2 the complaint as accused persons, who abused and meted out harassment to her. The Police after investigation submitted final report when the petitioners were not sent up for trial and charge sheet was submitted against the husband only, differing with which cognizance was taken by the Court below. The husband has filed a divorce case earlier in time, in which the Opposite Party no.2 has also entered appearance now. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2 did not dispute the correctness of the submission that the allegations against the petitioners are generalized. The allegations are more specific against the husband and other family members. He, however, invited attention of the Court to paragraph-4 of the complaint to urge that the petitioners are also stated to have made dowry demands at the time that the Opposite Party no.2 was to proceed for her matrimonial home after the marriage. This Court has gone through the allegations in the complaint. The allegations against the petitioners, at best, relate to a time when the complainant was proceeding for the matrimonial home. Notwithstanding the objections that the petitioners may have raised, as alleged, they did not oppose her going to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the allegations in the complaint are generalized against the petitioners of abusing and making false allegations of theft of the keys against the Opposite Party no.2 while they are more specific against the husband and accused no.2 in the complaint and certain other of the accused. There are no allegations that the petitioners were residing in their parental home even after their marriage, much less with their 3 husband. The cause title of the original complaint quite appropriately shows that petitioners no.1 and 2 were residing in their own matrimonial home. Insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned, she was a young unmarried girl. The Court appropriately considers this aspect in the background of absence of any specific allegations against her for demand of dowry and her subsequent marriage and going out of the matrimonial house of the complainant. A similar issue with regard to the prosecution of the sisters of the husband of the alleged victim in a proceeding under Sections-498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act came up for consideration in Supreme Court 2005(3) S.C.C. 507 (RAMESH AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF T.N.). The Apex Court with regard to the married sisters considered the matter in the following terms in paragraph-6 of the Judgment: 6. Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences viz. Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time i.e. between March and October 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of the informant by her sister- in-law (the appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash WC and 4 she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave”. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister- in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed. Applying the law, as laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, this Court finds it difficult to arrive at any different conclusion with regard to the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are generalized for abusing, making allegations of theft with regard to keys. Whatever allegations allegedly for demands of dowry be there, the petitioners themselves conditioned and the complainant came to the matrimonial home after the marriage. Thereafter, there are no allegations of harassment for dowry against the petitioners. The observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment with the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law, to this Court, applied with equal force in the present allegations. In the entirety of the discussions, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order dated 14.08.2007 insofar as present 5 petitioners alone are concerned. It is, accordingly, set aside with regard to the present petitioners. The order dated 14.08.2007 is, accordingly, set aside. The entire proceedings against the petitioners in Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case no. 104/2001 and order of cognizance dated 16.12.2002 is accordingly quashed. The application stands allowed only insofar as the present three petitioners are concerned. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)