IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and dowry offences – All acts of a dissatisfied and disgruntled wife or daughter-in-law, cannot be brought within purview of Section 498-A of IPC.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Both the applications are being heard together as they arise out of the common order of cognizance dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger.

2. Heard Ms. Aditi Hansaria, the learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Pratik Raj, the learned advocates and Mr. Binod Kumar and Ramchandra Sahni, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

3. The present applications are being filed for quashing the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Kasimbazar P.S Case No. 160 of 2020 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 341, 323, 379, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. All the petitioners in aforesaid two applications happen to be the in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 (Informant). Petitioner no. 1 and 3 are the sisters-in-law while petitioner no. 2 and 4 are the brothers -in-law of the Informant respectively in Cr. Misc. No. 16948 of 2023; whereas Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023 has been preferred by the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the Informant who are petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively.

5. The allegations levelled by the Informant in brief is that her marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2007 with Late Arun Kumar Mishra as per the Hindu rites and rituals. The Informant states that soon after the marriage she was treated with cruelty, abused and beaten by the petitioners hereinabove and the situation did not ameliorate even after she told her husband about this and was resolved only after the intervention of her parents. She further alleges that even while she was pregnant, she was forced to deliver her child at her parents’ home because of a displeasing situation at her matrimonial home. Further, her father-in-law asked her for the jewellery she brought from her parental home with an estimated worth of Rs.7 lakhs, took her clothes and gave it to her daughters and further demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and a motorcycle for his son-in-law, upon refusal of which, she was beaten and the jewellery worn by her was taken by the father-in-law. Subsequently, when the financial condition of the husband of the Informant improved, the same was distastefully noted by the in-laws. She has further called her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law to be of objectionable character. The Informant asserts that the in-laws were mentally harassing her husband intending to cause harm to his life as he was a heart patient and during the covid-19 lockdown the Informant’s husband felt discomfort and needed to be admitted in a hospital in emergency however none of the in-laws helped, and thereafter the Informant had to alone take her husband to hospital wherein he died of cardiac arrest on 27.04.2020. The Informant gave a written report on 01.05.2020 and a formal First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as F.I.R.) bearing Kasimbazar P.S. Case No. 160/2020 was lodged on 22.06.2020 against the petitioners named above, based thereupon.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that it would evident from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. that the allegations made therein are by and large, general and omnibus in nature and are baseless with no substantiation of the same and are mechanically adjudged by the court below and the cognizance therein has been taken without the application of judicial mind. The learned counsel has further pointed out the fact that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and the husband of the Informant (O.P. no. 2) died in the year 2020, i.e., after 13 years of marriage, yet the Informant never filed a legal complaint during his lifetime rather, merely four days after the death of the informant’s husband and the son of the petitioner no. 1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. 19092/2023, the written r