BHAGWAT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 23/1/2019 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1250 of 2014 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sec. 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and Ss. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short D.P. Act) has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1, Bhagwat Pathak, is no more and his prayer has been withdrawn from this petition. Now, the instant petition is to be decided in respect of other petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are married sisters of the husband of the O.P. No. 2, petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and petitioner no. 5 is cousin elder brother of the husband of the O.P. No. 2. In the entire complaint, there is no specific allegation with regard to the alleged demand of Rs.25.00 lakhs and the allegation of making sarcastic and taunting remarks upon the complainant by the petitioners is general and omnibus and the paragraph no. 2 of the complaint clearly shows that after the marriage, the complainant stayed at her sasural only for 15 days in three visiting terms, which shows that complainant had stayed at her sasural for very short time. As per the allegation made by the complainant, the petitioners forcefully administered poison to the complainant, as a result of which she was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, but the said allegation is also general and omnibus against the petitioner nos. 2 to 5. Further, no any document particularly with regard to the medical treatment of the complainant at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh was filed with the complaint before the inquiry Court, which could have been easily produced if the complainant remained under treatment at the said hospital. He further submits that the husband of the complainant is younger brother of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who were married during the relevant period of occurrence and both were residing in their respective sasural and petitioner no. 5 is cousin brother of the petitioner no. 4, who has no concern with the family affairs of the complainant's husband. It is further submitted that if the petitionesr are subjected to face trial for the offences under Sec. 498(A) of I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act for the allegations which are completely general and omnibus, it would be complete harassment to them. In support of these submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of which details are being given below with reproducing the relevant paragraphs:-

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Tabish Shaffuddin, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2, complainant, vehemently opposes the instant petition and submits that the marriage of the complainant took place in the year 2013 and within one year from the marriage, she had to resort to legal remedy on account of being mentally and physically tortured by the petitioners. Though in the complaint petition, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners except one incident, but the same can not be a ground to exonerate the petitioners from the entire criminal liability at the initial stage. However, in respect of the incident of administering poison, which was committed by the petitioners with the complainant, specific detail has been given in the complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant was mentally and physically tortured by the petitioners on account of non-fulfillment of Rs.25.00 lakhs which was demanded by the petitioners. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Taramani Parakh vs State of M.P. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2015 and the relevant Paragraph No. 9 upon which the reliance has been placed, is being reproduced as under:-