IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51965 of 2007 1.SMT.SATYAWATI DEVI @ SATYAWATI TIWARI W/O SRI VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI. 2.VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, SON OF LATE SHIV SHANKAR TIWARI. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BANGRA, P.S. KUCHAIKOT, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ AT PRESENT RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.P83/4 M.E.S.Md. AREA, P.O. AND P.S. RAMGARH CANTT. DISTRICT-RAMGARH. 3. RAKESH TIWARI, SON OF SRI KAPILDEO TIWARI, VILLAGE-BHATHAWA MODE, P.O. AND P.S. KUCHAIKOT, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. AT PRESENT POSTED AS BRANCH MANAGER, MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., AT RANCHI, JHARKHAND. -PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. JYOTI TIWARI, W/O SRI RAJESH TIWARI, RESIDENT OF BHATHAWA MORE, P.O. AND P.S. KOCHAIKOT, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. AT PRESENT –C/O SRI NARENDRA MISHRA, MOHALLA-MAJHAULIA ROAD (JAINAGAR), P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. --OPPOSITE PARTIES _______ For the Petitioners : M/s Soni Shrivastava & Indrajeet Bhushan For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Sanjay Krumar Pandey No.5 4 20.04.2010 This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the three petitioners, who are respectively sister-in-law (Nanad), 2 brother-in-law (Nandoi) and Dewar of the complainant, opposite party no.2. By filing this application the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 14th December, 2006 passed in Complaint Case no. 2381(C) of 2006 by Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By order of this Court dated 22nd February, 2008 further proceeding of the court below has already been stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing order under challenge, submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint petition it will appear that, in fact, there is absolutely no allegation leveled against the petitioners. In a few paragraphs whatever is alleged are simple omnibus allegation but only against petitioners no. 1 and 3 there is nothing specific against either of the petitioners. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation. It is further contended that all the petitioners reside at Jharkhand, petitioner no.1 was married in the year 1984 with petitioner no.2 and both reside at service 3 place (i.e. Ramgarh) of petitioner no.2. Moreover, petitioner no.1 has been suffering from cancer also and petitioner no.3 is also in service at Ranchi. Inspite of this fact they all have been made accused only because of being related with the husband of opposite party no.2, without any fault or wrong committed by them. But, cognizance has been taken. The order is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel, in support of the contention,. placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 2005 S.C. 1989 which has further been relied upon and followed by different decisions of this Court in the cases of Md. Ashfaque Alam; 2006(2) PLJR 535, Rima Devi Vrs. State of Bihar; 2007 (2) PLJR 262, Ashok Kumar Chaurasia V. State of Bihar; 2007 (4) PLJR 271, and Rajiv Kumar V. State of Bihar; 2008(1) PLJR 77). The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations leveled are not only vague rather it is not clear from the complaint petition which of the accused, specifically petitioners, have committed what specific act, on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of the contention she placed reliance upon the 4 decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and Others V. Bharti ; (2009) 10 SCC 184. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 the complainant, submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint petition are sufficient to constitute commission of offence by accused persons including the petitioners. There is no vagueness nor lack of any specific allegation rather every thing is clear and supported by complainant in her examination on solemn affirmation and other witnesses examined during enquiry. Decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable in the instant case. It is relevant to mention that opposite party no.2 filed the complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, against as many as eight persons including her husband, accused no.1, parents in law, accused no.2 and 3 and other family members. The petitioners respectively figured as accused no.7, 8 and 6. It is alleged that opposite party no.2 was married with accused no.1 on 10th February, 2004 and cash, ornaments and other articles were given as gift. On arrival at Sasural on 12th February, 2004 she was being blamed by the accused 5 persons regarding some shortage in dowry as there were some lucrative offers from other parties. There was consistent demand of one Maruti Zen car by her husband and parents in law and even by brother in law (Bhainsur and Gotni) who proceeded to Delhi, that is their place of residence, on 14th February, 2004. Thereafter, for the first time, in paragraph 5 of the complaint petition it is alleged that mother in law and sister in law, that is petitioner no.1, both tortured her and inspite of requests made by her and her father, parents in law and petitioner no.1 did not concede and she was sent back with her father on 24th February, 2004 itself. There are other allegations against rest of the accused persons (not the petitioners) and for the first time in paragraph 9 there is an omnibus allegation against the accused no.1 to 6 regarding their demand of some cash in lieu of vehicle at Delhi, it was on 20th March, 2004. Some time thereafter husband of the complainant proceeded to Bangalore with the complainant where she also became pregnant. She delivered female child subsequently. In paragraph 30 to the complaint petition there is again a general allegation against accused no.1 and 4 to 6 regarding abusing through telephone for a sum of rupees six 6 lacs. It is further stated in paragraph 14 that on the occasion of marriage of petitioner no.3, that is accused no.6, matter appeared to have been resolved and accused no.8, that is petitioner no.2 here, along with his father in law went to take the complainant from Muzaffarpur to her Sasural to participate in marriage of petitioner no.3. The complainant has again leveled an omnibus allegation that after marriage ceremony she was persuaded for payment of rupees six lacs also. From the complaint petition itself it is clear that only at a very few places there is general and omnibus allegation has been leveled against the petitioners no.1 and 3 and so far petitioner no.2 is concerned, the offence committed by him, as alleged, to bring the complainant from her father’s place to her Sasural on the occasion of marriage of petitioner no.3. This is admitted position that petitioner no.1 is married Nanad (sister in law) of opposite party no.2 residing at Ramgarh with her husband, petitioner no.2. Their marriage was performed in the year 1984, that is, twenty years before marriage of opposite party no.2 with brother of petitioner 7 no.1. Both husband and wife, petitioners no.1 and 2, are residing in the State of Jharkhand. If on any occasion petitioner no.1 has come to her father’s place and even assuming that she supported her mother and uttered any word against opposite party no.2, it cannot be said that she brought her under purview of the offences committed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the document by way of different prescriptions shows that she is a cancer patient also apart from residing in the state of Jharkhand. There is absolutely no allegation against petitioner no.2. Similarly, it is also undisputed that petitioner no.3, younger brother of husband of opposite party no.2, was married before filing of the complaint in the year 2006 and to attend his marriage opposite party no.2 came from her father’s place along with her father in law and petitioner no.2. Seven months thereafter the complaint petition was filed and, as stated, there is general allegation against petitioner no.3 also who is working at Ranchi as Branch Manager in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. since before. Taking into consideration the admitted factual aspect, this court is convinced that complaint filed by 8 opposite party no.2 suffers the scenic general trend now a days that in such type of cases maximum number of persons are being made accused only because they are near and dear of husband and in laws of the complainant. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh V. State of Tamil Nadue (Supra) has clearly held that if the allegation even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant and her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and exonerated the married sister in law of the complainant- informant. The principle enunciated has been followed in the different cases, as referred and relied by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also clear from the complaint petition, as discussed above, that there is nothing specific against either of the petitioners and it suffers vagueness so far these petitioners are concerned. The Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra (Supra) has clearly held in paragraph 9: “In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” 9 On the basis of vagueness in the complaint, the proceedings were ordered to be quashed. This case also suffers vagueness. It would not be out of place to mention that if the case is permitted to continue against the petitioners two more families, that is, the family of petitioners no.1 and 2, who are married and residing away for last twenty six years from today, as well as petitioner no.3, who was married in the month of April, 2006, shall be disturbed for their no fault and it will be against the spirit of law besides abuse of process of law. Thus, the application stands allowed and proceeding of the court below with respect to all the three petitioners stand quashed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad