Allowed

Kamala Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC6 Jan 2014CR. MISC./407/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offences under Section 498A IPC. The court held that the allegations were based on suspicion with no injury report, the complaint was filed after a delay of two decades, and allowing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the entire prosecution against the petitioner in Complaint Case no. 311 of 2011.

Kamala Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.407 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Kamala Devi, W/O Brij Mohan Singh, resident Of Village- Meh, Police Station- Baroon, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Pushpa Devi, W/O Sunil Singh, D/O Rambriksh Singh, resident of Village- Kheora, Police Station- Baroon, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 06-01-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in Complaint Case no. 311 of 2011 whereby the processes were directed to be issued on cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶3

Petitioner is the wife of the elder brother of the complainant’s husband.

¶4

Notices were issued to the complainant on 21.1.2013 and 18.6.2013 but in spite of valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the O.P. NO. 2.

¶5

The prosecution case, as per the complaint filed by Pushpa Devi, is that she was married to Sunil Singh about 20 years

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶7

2/9

¶8

ago, when there is daughter out of the wedlock, who is now aged about 16 years. The complainant has levelled specific accusation against the husband that he used to demand Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand as dowry, while the accusation of assault has been levelled by the complainant against her husband and the present petitioner who happens to be the sister-in-law of the complainant.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accusation has been levelled after an inordinate delay, only on the basis of suspicion without there being any specific accusation against the petitioner and more over, no injury report has been brought on record.

¶10

It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner being an ex-Army personnel, deposited four lacs rupees in Punjab National Bank, which the complainant wanted to share and on refusal of the same, the petitioner has been roped as an accused in the present case.

¶11

The allegations against the petitioner, as levelled in the complaint petition, is to the extent that she is having illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant and it is on her instigation that the complainant’s husband has neglected to maintain the complainant and her daughter and that the complainant was assaulted by the petitioner and the complainant’s

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶13

3/9

¶14

husband on 13.4.2011.

¶15

This Court is of the view that it is a matter of common experience that most of the 498A cases are filed in heat of the moment for trivial issues without proper deliberation. Some of such complaints are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive implicating the family members and relatives of the husband with exaggerated version of accusation. .

¶16

The Apex court in the case of G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and ors., reported in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 693, has deprecated such implication of all family members of the husband. Paragraph 12 of the judgment reads as under:

¶17

“There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶19

4/9

¶20

law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”

¶21

Similar view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 and the false implication of the husband’s relatives has been deprecated. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment read as follows:

¶22

“34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.”

¶23

“35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or

¶24

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶25

5/9

¶26

rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

¶27

It has further been held in Paragraph nos. 36 and 37, in

¶28

the following words:

¶29

“36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

¶30

Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trial leads 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

¶31

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶32

6/9

¶33

complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changed in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provision of law.”

¶34

The provisions under section 498A was brought in by Act 46 of 1983. Section 498A of the IPC reads as under:

¶35

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶36

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-

¶37

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶38

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

¶39

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶40

7/9

¶41

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]”

¶42

Cruelty has been defined by Explanation added to the Section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A IPC are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far Clause (a) is concerned, have been classified as follows:

¶43

(i) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is

¶44

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide;

¶45

(ii) any willful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman;

¶46

(iii) any willful conduct which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.

¶47

For the purpose of Clause (b), essential ingredients are as under: harassment of married woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

¶48

Therefore, it is evident that charge under Section 498A IPC can be brought home, if the essential ingredient, either in Clause (a) or (b) or both are found duly established.

¶49

The accusation of making assault with fists and slaps is

¶50

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶51

8/9

¶52

against both, the complainant’s husband and the petitioner, but admittedly, no injury appears to have been caused, as gets reflected from going through the complaint petition. Specific incident of assault is dated 13.4.2011, whereas the complaint was filed on 20.4.2011. Hence, the alleged cruelty in the present case does not come within the Explanation of Clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. So far as Clause (b) of the Explanation is concerned, the accusation has been levelled only on the basis of suspicion.

¶53

Admittedly, the accusation against the petitioner does not come within Explanation (a) or (b) of cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. The complaint has been filed after two decades of the marriage while the complainant also does not specify as to how long the conjugal life remained happy and peaceful and the period, since when, the torture began, which suggests that the FIR has been lodged at the spur of moment on some or the other trivial issue.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid discussion, allowing the present prosecution to continue will amount to abuse of the process of the court which, prima facie, appears to be vexatious. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Complaint Case no. 311 of 2011, whereby the

¶55

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.407 of 2013 (4) dt.06-01-2014

¶56

9/9

¶57

processes were directed to be issued on cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code including the entire prosecution of Complaint Case no. 311 of 2011, with regard to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶58

This application is accordingly allowed.

¶59

Anil/-

¶60

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Kamala Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamala Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauri Shankar Prasad and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Neelam Kumar Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar

Shamshad Alam Khan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pappu Khan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chandan Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.