SUSHMA @ SUSHMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP 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 the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad taking cognizance against the petitioner and others under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner and other family members is of torture, assault and turning out of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation in the entire complaint petition is general and omnibus against the petitioner and other family members. It is submitted that she is the married sister of the husband of the informant and is living separately with her husband. In paragraph No. 7 of the application it has been stated that she lives at Delhi alongwith her children and was married 7 years ago. Learned counsel submits that being the married sister, it cannot be expected that she would be residing in her parents house and would be interfering in the day to day affairs and also torturing the informant for dowry. It is submitted that even in the complaint there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner and further that the allegation becomes unbelievable in view of the fact that it is admitted by the informant that upon the birth of a female child, all the accused came to her parents' house where they again demanded dowry and left the house after abusing. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be believed that in the parents' house of the informant, all the accused, including the petitioner, shall come and demand dowry and also abuse the informant. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have (sic) that there is a general tendency to rope in all family members by making vague and omnibus allegations so as to harass the accused. It is further submitted that the Courts have interfered in the matter under Section 482 of the Code where it is apparent that such allegations have made for oblique reasons with mala fide intention. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble the 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. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Jee Rai vs. The State of Bihar, 2013 3 PLJR 139.