BIDYA BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed for quashing of the entire prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. 1499 of 2010 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 7.9.2011 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioners is of general assault on account of demand of dowry and also of attempt to kill the complainant. The allegation against the petitioners no. 4 and 5 is also of attempt to commit rape.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire family members have been made accused in the complaint case. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint petition reveal that the same are general, omnibus and vague in nature as it is alleged that the petitioners used to torture the complainant for demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and one motorcycle. It is further submitted that admittedly the complainant was married to the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1999 and out of the wedlock three male children were born. Learned counsel submits that only in paragraph-4 of the complaint the allegations are somewhat specific inasmuch as it is alleged that on 16.7.2010 at around 7:00 P.M. the petitioners no. 4 and 5 tried to rape the complainant and when the same was complained to the mother-in-law and husband, all the other family members together tried to assault the complainant and also attempted to murder by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting fire which was prevented on the hue and cry of the complainant and arriving of other co-villagers. Learned counsel submits that in paragraph-5 of the complaint there is also an allegation that about three years prior to the incident also there was assault and she was also turned out from the matrimonial home. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the depositions of the complainant and three other witnesses. He points out to the inherent contradictions inasmuch as in the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation she has stated that she was married on 16.7.2010 whereas witness no. 1 has stated that the marriage took place on 12.3.1999 whereas witness no. 2 has stated that marriage took place in the year 2000. It is further submitted that from the plain reading of the depositions also it is clear that witnesses have in a routine manner stated things which they have not witnessed and thus the complainant has tried to rope in the petitioners for oblique reasons with mala fide intention. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-4 series which is the complaint of Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 121 of 2007 filed by the petitioner no. 1 against the complainant seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and also adultery. Learned counsel refers to the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 (complainant) in the year 2008 itself in the said matrimonial case where she has admitted that she has been turned out from the matrimonial home and was living with her father and thus has also prayed for maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that in such view of the matter the whole incident of 16.7.2010 stands falsified and unbelievable because the complainant herself has stated that in year 2008 itself she was living with her father. Learned counsel has stated that in various decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that the law meant for protection of women, especially in matrimonial relationship, has been widely misused and in the garb of making general and omnibus allegations, the entire family is roped. It is further submitted that the Courts have thus interfered in such proceedings and quashed the entire criminal prosecution under Section 482 of the Code. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Jee Rai vs. State of Bihar, 2013 3 PLJR 139 as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 (ii) Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 AIR(SC) 3363 , and (iii) Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., 2013 1 PLJR(SC) 10.