498a quashed against relatives on false allegations

12/22/2016 Lal Babu Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 August, 2013
Mobile View
User Queries
cruelty citedby:538436
no specific allegations
section498a
section 498a
sec.498a
498a
s.498a
babu singh
babu lal
ulterior motive
drunken
Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs [
View All]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 200 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 202 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Get this document in PDF Print it on a file/printer
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and
professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an adfree
experience.
Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Patna High Court Orders
Lal Babu Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35262 of 2012
======================================================

1. Lal Babu Singh, son of Late Barahi Singh.
2. Girija Devi, W/O Late Babu Singh.
3. Sangeeta Devi, W/O Bijay Singh.
All residents of Village‐ Petarihan, P.S. Janta Bazar, District‐ Saran
…. ….
Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar.
2. Kiran Devi, W/o Rakesh Singh, D/o Ram Pukar Prasad, resident of
Village‐ Sisayee, P.S. Janta Bazar, District‐ Saran.
……. Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
4 07. 08. 2013. Heard.
1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Trial No. 2466 of 2012 arising out of Complaint Case No.
1896 of 2011 by which the Learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance against the
petitioner for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the complainant, Kiran Devi
that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Rakesh Singh on 14. 05. 2007 and at
the time of the marriage rupees four lakhs spent by gift and after marriage the complainant went
to Sasural.
3. It is alleged that after the marriage there was demand of maruti car in pretext of boy is in
service in police and subjecting cruelty. It is further alleged that on promise to fulfill the demand
Office 365 Personal
?330 Get it
Office 365 Home (renewal)
?4,199 Get it
12/22/2016 Lal Babu Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 August, 2013
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105254697/ 2/4
the husband took the victim wife at the place of service at Kokrajhar with his parents. The further
allegation that husband used to come in drunken state in late night and pressurise the
complainant to fulfill the demand and subject her to cruelty and assault. The further allegation
that on 25. 06. 2008 the husband of the complainant along with fatherinlaw
and motherinlaw
assaulted the victim wife then complainant informed her father. The father of the complainant
came then accused persons did not allow the father to meet the complainant and complainant
lodged a criminal case against accused husband and her fatherinlaw
and motherinlaw
in
Kokrajhar P.S. During investigation, the parents of the complainant with the help of police took
the complainant to her Naihar. It is further alleged that brother of the complainant Jitendra
Prasad, Pintu Prasad and Suresh went to the house of the accused persons along with the
complainant by which husband of the complainant filed a false case upon them. It is further
alleged that thereafter at the intervention of the party there was compromise and accused persons
took the complainant kept her well for some time. It is further alleged that again they started
subjecting cruelty and assaulting the complainant and the complainant informed her father. The
father of the complainant went to Sasural of his daughter on 16. 07. 2011 when the complainant
disclosed her father about assault and subjecting cruelty for nonfulfillment
of demand of a
Maruti car on which accused persons lost temper assaulted her and snatched her clothes and
throw her out of the matrimonial home and kept articles worth rupees four lakhs.
4. On the complaint, the complainant and four witnesses were examined on oath and taking into
consideration the statement of complainant and witnesses summons were ordered to be issued
against accused persons after taking cognizance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order that petitioners are fatherinlaw,
motherinlaw
and Gotini of the complainant and the allegations are vague, general and omnibus
as there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. The allegations made do not makes out an
offence and the petition has been filed malafidely with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance as the
brother of the complainant had been convicted in the case filed by the husband. It has been
asserted that this case has been filed in retaliation to the case filed against the brother of the
complainant as G.R. No. 1692 of 2009, dated 07.
11. 2010. It has further been contended that taking into consideration the allegation made in the
complaint its does not makes out an offence and there is no specific allegation against the
petitioners either in the complaint petition or in the statement of the witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party however contends that from the allegation made in the
complaint as well as examination of the witnesses, it is apparent that accused persons demanded
and subjected cruelty for nonfulfillment
of demand, hence the allegation made on the face value
makes out an offence under Section 498A. It is submitted that this court at this stage of taking
cognizance will require to look on the face value of the complaint whether allegations made,
makes out an offence and court will not question the enquiry. Hence it is not proper to quash the
order taking cognizance against the petitioners who are relative of the petitioners.
7. Hence on the respective submissions of the parties, the question for consideration whether
allowing the order taking cognizance and prosecution to continue is abuse of the process of the
Court.
8. Reverting back to the allegation, it is apparent that whatever allegation made specifically about
the demand and subjecting cruelty for nonfulfillment
of the demand is against the husband. It is
alleged that husband used to come and assault in drunken stage. There is no specific allegation
either by fatherinlaw,
motherinlaw
and Gotini. In the statement of the witnesses also there is
no specific allegation against the petitioners except P.W. 4, the mother of the victim who is not
eye witness has only named the petitioner to have assault without any reference to weapon used
or part of body and hence whatever asserted by P.W. 4 is general and omnibus.
12/22/2016 Lal Babu Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 August, 2013
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105254697/ 3/4
9. So far other accused accusedpetitioners
is concerned there is no specific allegation for any act
of commission against the petitioners. That except general and omnibus allegation that fatherinlaw
and motherinlaw
along with the husband used to subject her to cruelty. The victimcomplainant
in her statement during enquiry has specifically stated in complaint is quite general
and omnibus that accused persons used to assault for nonfulfillment
of demand of a Maruti car
and her husband used to come at drunken stage and used to assault and driven her out. However,
there is no specific allegation regarding other accused persons. Witnesses examined as Ram
Nalina Prasad, Ram Pukar Prasad and Anita Devi have not stated in their deposition for any act
of commission or omission specifically by the petitioners who are fatherinlaw,
motherinlaw
and Gotini and there is general and omnibus allegation about demand and subjecting cruelty
without any reference date, time, place and manner. However, P.W. 4 has stated that Ram Pukar
Singh, Lal Babu, Bijay Singh, Girija Devi and Sangita Devi assaulted the Victim. However, P.W. 4
Durgawati is not eye witness, stated in her deposition that this fact disclosed by the complainant.
Moreover, her statement naming the accused person to have assaulted is also in general and
omnibus manner.
10. This complied with the allegation in the complaint that the husband has falsely implicated the
brothers of the complainant when they went to their home for settlement. The Exhibit 2 is the
certified copy of the order sheet of GR Case No. 109 of 2008 indicates that the brothers of the
complainant were convicted in the said case. Hence the case has been filed with ulterior motive
implicating the inlaws.
11. However, it is matter of common exercise the courts from the district level to the Apex Court
are flooded the case under Section 498A and matrimonial case. This clearly discontent and unrest
in the family life or of a large number of the society. It is matter of common experience that most
of these complaints are filed under Section 498 A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues without proper deliberations had traveled with oblique motive to implicate the
relatives of the husband. However it is pertinent to refer the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in
(Preeti Gupta Vrs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, reported in paras 30 and 32 page 676
read as follows ;
” 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complainants under
Section 498A I.P.C. are filed in the heat moment over trival issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even
bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the
number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished.
They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected
in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice
or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under
Section 498A
as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help
the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must
discharge their duties to be best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the bar should also ensure
that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”
12. However, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
sparingly in exceptional case and the scope and ambit of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to act
exdebito
justilia to do real and substantial justice to prevent to abuse of process of the court and
otherwise to secure the end of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution and power required to be used on second possible. However, decision
12/22/2016 Lal Babu Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 August, 2013
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105254697/ 4/4
reported in R. K. Kapur case AIR 1960 SC 866 as well as Bhajan Lal case 1992 supp. (1) SCC has
genuine principle and category of cases where whether inherent power can be exercised to quash
the criminal case if allowing the prosecution to continue is abuse of the process of the Court and
end of justice require the proceeding to be quashed.
13. However, on careful scrutiny of the allegation in light of statement of the witnesses and
complainant recorded during enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner, it is a matter of common experience that cases are filed under
Section 498A in heat of moment where entire family members of the husband are implicated. The
general and omnibus allegation and evidence against the petitioner shows agony of the
complainant to implicate the family member of the husband and further the fact that the brothers
of the complainant having been convicted in case lodged by husband may have appear to be
caused to implicate the relative of the husband maliciously with ulterior motive to wreck
vengeance. The tendency to implicate the immediate relatives of the husband in grievance is not
uncommon.
14. Hence allowing the order taking cognizance and prosecution to continue against the
petitioners is abuse of the process of the court.
15. Accordingly order taking cognizance against the petitioners are hereby set aside and petition
is allowed.
m.p. (Gopal Prasad, J)

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997