PRIYANKA PRIYADARSHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present quashing petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') by the above-named petitioners for quashing of the order dtd. 1/3/2024 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City in connection with Patna Complaint Case No.155 (C) of 2024 titled as Asmita Kumari vs. Kunal Yadav and Ors., whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 420, 406, 379 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') as well as Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is presently pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patna city.

(2.) The case of prosecution is based upon the written report of one Asmita Kumari/complainant/O.P. No.2 alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the accused No. 1 namely, Kunal @ Kunal Yadav (who is not a petitioner) as per Hindu rites and rituals on 12/6/2022 at Patna. It is alleged that the engagement ceremony of the complainant/O.P. No.2 with the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav was organized at Hotel Maurya Patna, for which an expense of Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lacs) only occurred, and the same was solely borne by the father of the complainant. The complainant further alleged in the complaint that the marriage expense of Rs.12,00,000.00 (rupees twelve lacs) was also borne by the father of the complainant, which the accused persons allegedly refused to share the same. It is further alleged by the complainant that her father has gifted her cash worth Rs.35,00,000.00 (rupees thirty five lacs), gold and silver jewellery worth Rs.6,75,000.00(rupees six lacs seventy five thousand) cash worth Rs.25,00,000.00 (rupees twenty five lacs) for purchase of car and cash amount worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lacs) for purchase of household items. Cash as mentioned aforesaid was allegedly handed over to the accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3, namely, Kunal Yadav, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi. It is further alleged that cash worth Rs.15,00,000.00 (rupees fifteen lacs) was handed over to accused No. 5 namely, Shri Sunil Kumar for purchase of car on 8/5/2022. The complainant further alleged that after solemnization of her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home situated at Kankarbagh, Patna. She was treated well by all the accused persons for first few months. It is alleged that the behavior of the accused persons deteriorated thereafter, and then accused persons raised a further dowry demand for cash of Rs.50,00,000.00 (rupees fifty lacs) for purchase of a flat. The complainant was pressurized to bring such amount from her father and when she refused to do so, then the complainant was subjected to verbal and physical abuse. The complainant allegedly was induced by the accused nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6, namely, Anjani Kumar, Uma Devi, Sunil Kumar and Pinki Kumari to transfer an amount of Rs.11,00,000.00 (rupees eleven lacs only) through installments in the name of repairing of her matrimonial home situated at Patna. The inducement was allegedly supported by the accused no. 4, namely Priyanka Priyadarshi through her personal presence or virtually through mobile call. It is further alleged that at the instance of accused nos. 2 & 4, namely, Anjani Kumar and Priyanka Priyadarshi, the accused no. 1 Kunal @ Kunal Yadav used to take the EMI amount of the flat, which was purchased by him at Bengaluru (Karnataka) from the complainant. Moreover, it was also alleged that her whole salary was spent by the accused persons for their house-hold goods and expenditure. It is further alleged that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home when on 18/11/2023 during chhath festival the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav along with accused Nos. 2 & 3, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi took the complainant with them after being persuaded by the common acquaintances but, thereafter, the complainant was verbally abused when she was referred to as an unattractive and degraded person. It is further alleged that the complainant in order to save her matrimonial life and family reputation did not protest and accepted everything. Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Kunal Yadav, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi allegedly acted as per the instruction of accused no. 4, Priyanka Priyadarshi. It is alleged that the complainant was treated as a servant and she was compelled to do all the household work after her official works. It is further alleged that when the complainant asked to keep a maid to the household works, she was assaulted by them. It is further alleged that on 25/1/2024, the accused No. 1 Kunal @ Kunal Yadav took all the belongings from the flat and vacate it and put a lock over the same, when the complainant refused to share her salary income with the accused No. 1, Kunal Yadav. The complainant at that time was in her office and she was ignorant about the same. The complainant further stated that she got the entry into the flat with the help of the members of the housing society and none of the accused persons i.e. accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 were picking up the calls. It is further stated that after the aforesaid incident, the complainant came to the house of her father and is working from there since 12/2/2024. The complainant further alleged that the accused Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi came to their home at Bengaluru and stayed there for many days and instigated their son against the complainant. The complainant also alleged that the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadva in a designed conspiracy has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,00,000.00 (rupees fifty lacs) from her mobile and also took away her jewellery, educational qualification, certificates and passport. It is further alleged that the accused persons also threatened the complainant that the accused no. 1 Kunal Yadav will divorce her, sell his flat at Bengaluru and will marry with another girl. The complainant also informed the concerned police station that the accused no. 1 took all the belongings of the flat and left it by putting another lock and she got her entry with the help of the society members. It is alleged that the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar and Pinki Kumari came to the paternal house of the complainant and verbally abused her and informed her that the accused No. 1, namely, Kunal Yadav will only keep her when they will fulfil the dowry demand. It is also alleged that the accused nos. 4, 5 & 6 again came to the paternal house of the complainant on 13/2/2024 and physically abused her when she refused to mark her signature over some non judicial stamp paper, which the accused no. 4 was referring to as "Divorce Papers".

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Mayank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent in-laws and distant relatives, and they have committed no offence. They have been implicated out of their relations only with the husband of O.P. No.2, namely, Kunal Yadav. Clarifying the relation of petitioners, it is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the married sister of the husband of O.P. No.2, whereas petitioner no.2 is the maternal uncle (Mama) and petitioner no.3 is the maternal aunt (mami) of the husband of O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the husband of O.P. No.2 employed at Bengaluru, where he purchased a flat bearing No.311, 3rd Floor, DX MAX SISTA, Bharath Housing Society, Subramanyapura, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru, before the marriage, where he was living with his old parents. The marriage of O.P. No.2 with the brother of petitioner no.1 was solemnized out of an acquaintance developed on an online matrimonial portal. The marriage was arranged, and the sister-in-law, petitioner no.1, first time met with the complainant in the month of January, 2022. It is further submitted that the engagement ceremony in connection with the present marriage took place on 6/6/2022, whereafter the marriage between O.P. No.2 and accused no.1, namely Kunal Yadav, who is not the petitioner for the present was solemnized on 12/6/2022 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Patna. Thereafter, both of them went back to Bengaluru on 18/7/2022. It is pointed out that both wife and husband are software engineers. They have an independent life and an independent source of income. It is pointed out that the whole issue and differences surfaced only when the complainant/O.P. No.2 had conceived in the month of September, 2022 but, she was reluctant for not having a child at the beginning of her marriage. She took all possible steps to abort the pregnancy, and on 7/10/2022, she was taken to the hospital, where, after conducting some test, it was detected that the foetus's heart beat had stopped and the pregnancy of the complainant was aborted.