Allowed¶31

Prabha Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Apr 2024CR. MISC./16822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. Misc. No.16822 of 2023, Patna High Court, decided 15-04-2024 (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J); quashing of cognizance order dated 22.2.2019; Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018; PS Case No.-1233/2018, Thana- COMPLAINT CASE, District- Banka; sections 323, 379, 498(A), 504, 506, 307/34 IPC and sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; mother-in-law implicated only on general allegations; dowry demand of Rs. 1 lakh and Hero motorcycle; marriage gifts Rs. 2,00,000; husband's petition withdrawn; complainant unrepresented; abuse of process; Preeti Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 667; Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 22.2.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018 quashed with respect to petitioner no.1 (Prabha Devi); the quashing petition of petitioner no.2 had already been dismissed as withdrawn. ¶31

Prabha Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether, on general allegations of involvement in physical and mental torture without any specific role attributed to petitioner no.1 (mother-in-law), the cognizance order dated 22.2.2019 in Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018 ought to be quashed as amounting to abuse of the process of the court.

¶19

Court's answer

On the materials on record, mere general allegations that petitioner no.1 was involved in the physical and mental torture of the informant/opposite party no.2, without anything more, would make continuation of proceedings against the petitioners an abuse of the process of the court.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and in the absence of any specific role attributed to petitioner no.1, it would be unjust to force petitioner no.1 through the tribulations of a trial.

¶28

Key takeaways

The order of cognizance dated 22.2.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018 is quashed with respect to petitioner no.1 (Prabha Devi), and the present quashing application is accordingly allowed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing allowed for petitioner no.1 only. Prabhat Kumar Singh, J (Patna High Court, Cr. Misc. No.16822 of 2023, decided 15-04-2024) quashed the cognizance order dated 22.2.2019 in Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018 (arising out of PS Case No.-1233, Year-2018, Thana- COMPLAINT CASE, District- Banka; alleged offences under sections 323, 379, 498(A), 504, 506, 307/34 IPC and sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act) qua petitioner no.1 Prabha Devi, mother-in-law of complainant Pinki Devi. The Court held that merely general allegations that petitioner no.1 was involved in the physical and mental torture of the informant, with no specific role attributed to her, meant that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court and it would be unjust to force her through the tribulations of a trial, in light of the law laid down in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599. The quashing petition of petitioner no.2 (husband Prafull Kumar Mandal) was dismissed as withdrawn; opposite party no.2 did not appear despite valid service of notice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16822 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1233 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka

¶3

======================================================

¶4

PRABHA DEVI W/o Nawal Kishore Mandal R/o Village- Parariya, P.S.Banka, Distt- Banka.

¶5

Prafull Kumar Mandal S/o Nawal Kishore Mandal R/o Village- Parariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt- Banka.

¶6

... ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Pinki Devi D/o Kamdeo Mandal R/o Village- Neel Kothi, P.S.- Chanan, Distt- Banka.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, Addl Public Prosecutor

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶16

6 15-04-2024

¶17

Quashing petition of petitioner no.2 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 and the State. Nobody appears for opposite party no.2 inspite of valid service of notice.

¶19

This application has been filed for quashing order dated 22.2.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1238/2018, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for alleged offence under sections 323, 379, 498 (A), 504, 506, 307/34 of the I.P.C. as well as sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶20

As per the prosecution case, opposite party no.2 was married with the petitioner no. 2 on 03.06.2013 in accordance with Hindu culture. At the time of marriage, her father had given gift and other articles of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further stated that till one and a half year, their conjugal life

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16822 of 2023(6) dt.15-04-2024 2/4

¶22

remained happy, but after that with conspiracy of whole family, accused persons including the petitioners demand Rs. 1 Lakh as dowry and one Hero motorcycle, failing which, the complainant will not allow to live in her laws place. When the complainant told them that her father is unable to pay the same, upon which her husband abused her and given personal comment and they stopped providing her food. It is further alleged that the accused persons also tried burn her but any how she saved her life.

¶23

While denying the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is husband of opposite party no.2. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that occurrence took place on 25.07.2018, but the complaint case instituted on 20.08.2018 after delay of 26 days and there is no explanation for the same. However, petitioner no.2 is still ready to keep his wife/ opposite party no.2 in matrimonial house with security and dignity, if she withdraws the cases lodged by her in Banka Civil Court at the behest of her father who is practicing lawyer in the said court. That apart, allegation of torture and harassment is general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been alleged against her. As a matter of fact, husband of opposite party no.2 is labour working as Raj Mistri, whereas father of opposite party no.2 is a practicing advocate in Civil Court, Banka and at his instance opposite party no.2 has lodged this false in order to grab property of the petitioner. It is next submitted that merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, the petitioner has been made an accused in this case and continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of the process of the court. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16822 of 2023(6) dt.15-04-2024 3/4

¶25

the Hon’ble Apex court passed in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 .

¶26

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is mother in law of opposite party no.2 and is named in the FIR. She is instrumental in torturing opposite party no. 2, both mentally and physically. From perusal of the FIR it reflects that there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner and it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against this petitioner. Hence, no interference is required by this court at this stage.

¶27

Having heard submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that merely by making general allegations that the petitioner was involved in physical and mental torture of the informant/opposite party no. 2, continuation of proceedings against these petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the court..

¶28

Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , and in absence of any specific role attributed to petitioner no.1, it would be unjust if this petitioner is forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.

¶29