Petitioners, in-laws of the complainant, sought quashing of a cognizance order under Section 498A IPC. Relying on precedents cautioning against vague allegations against relatives, the High Court held the case was an abuse of process and quashed the cognizance order against them.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33316 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1094 Year-2016 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-07-2024
The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 19th of December, 2016 passed in complaint case No. 1094 of 2016, passed by learned A.C.J.M. XIII, Bhagalpur whereby cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code has been taken against all the accused persons named in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 2/7
complaint petition.
petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are in-laws of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 3/7
opposite party No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is Gotini of the complainant and petitioner No. 4 is sister of petitioner No. 3. It is further submitted that husband of the complainant (co-accused) has built a separate house at Bhagalpur for the complainant and is keeping his wife and children there. He regularly used to visit there and give money for their expenses. The dispute, if any, between husband and wife (complainant) the petitioners are not at all concerned with their affairs. The petitioners are separate from the complainant and her husband. The petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence and have been implicated wrongly and falsely in this case. It is further submitted that the present case is an absolute misuse and abuse of due process of law. The relatives of the husband have been dragged unnecessarily in this case.
learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 while opposing the prayer of application submitted that petitioners have actively participated in the occurrence and as such a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 4/7
prima-facie case is made out against them.
High Court to make fresh orders as measures necessary in three different situations.
Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191 in its paragraph no. 13, it has been held that for quashing the proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by Magistrate not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint does not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken. It is open to the High
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 5/7
Court to quash the same in the exercise of inherent powers.
& another vs. State of Jharkhand & another, reported
in (2010) 7 SCC 667 has been pleased to rule that there should be a clear allegation against the relatives of the husband and vague & omnibus allegation would not be sufficient to compel them to undergo agony of the trial.
vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has been pleased to observe that there is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498(A) I.P.C. was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498(A) I.P.C. is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. This simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 6/7
cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. In the said case, the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts with regard to proceeding against in-laws and distant relatives of the husband of the wife involved in the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and other relevant offences.
No. 2 and facing general and omnibus allegation. The petitioners are not concerned at all with the affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. The petitioners are separate from complainant and her husband.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33316 of 2019 dt.04-07-2024 7/7
aside with regard to present petitioners.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Nirajkrs/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 09.07.2024 |
| Transmission Date | 09.07.2024 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether cognizance under Section 498A IPC against the husband's relatives, based on general and omnibus allegations, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶6
2019 (18) SCC 191 · Who else cites this
Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & anotherRelied on¶7
(2010) 7 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and AnotherRelied on¶8
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Prasad Singh
Sonia Devi
Puja Kumari @ Puja Devi
Sajan Kumari
The State of Bihar
Chandrasena Devi
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
