Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Vikesh Kumar Gautam – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11177, 19104, 21085 of 2014
Decided on : 05-08-2015
498A IPC - Matrimonial Dispute - Sections 341, 323, 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the legal provisions and principles related to the quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the distinction between compounding of offences and quashing of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice in cases predominantly having a civil flavor, commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or arising out of matrimonial disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute arising from allegations of dowry demands, mental torture, and abuse. The parties had settled their dispute and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the chances of conviction were bleak as the witnesses were not going to support the prosecution case. It concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court and cause serious prejudice to both parties, who had already severed their matrimonial ties with a peaceful note.
Issues: The court had to decide whether the non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could be quashed in the interest of justice, despite the embargo under Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. The court also considered the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases predominantly having a civil flavor, commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or arising out of matrimonial disputes, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. The court emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders rejecting the applications for discharge and the order of cognizance, thereby ending the entire prosecution of the case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the three matters arise out of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1895C of 2012, hence all the three applications have been heard together.
3. Cr. Misc. No. 11177 of 2014 has been preferred by Vikesh Kumar Gautam and Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Thakur, the brother and brother-in-law, respectively, of the husband of the informant against the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by learned SDJM, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1895C of 2012 whereby the petitioners’ application for discharge under Sections 239 of the Cr. P.C. has been rejected.
4. Cr. Misc. No. 19104 of 2014 has been preferred by Rita Devi and Ram Udgar Singh, the parents of the husband of the informant against the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by learned SDJM, Patna in Shashtri Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012 whereby petitioners’ application for discharge under Sections 239 of the Cr. P.C. has been rejected.
5. Cr. Misc. No. 21085 of 2014 has been preferred by Rupesh Kumar Gautam, the husband of the informant, against the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned SDJM, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012 whereby process was directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. This is not in dispute that the charges have not been framed in the matter. The matter was heard by this Court on several occasions and lastly on 22.01.2015, the matter was adjourned for 27.01.2015 but the same could not be listed hence could not be taken up till date.
7. Short matrix of the case as alleged in the complaint is that the negotiation for marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Rupesh Kumar Gautam was finalized in June, 2011, thereafter the accused persons pressurized the complainant’s father to fulfill their demand of dowry, consequently he agreed for the same. Initial demand of dowry was for Rs. 11 lakhs in cash, gold jewellery worth Rs. 12 lakhs, silver utensils to be given in Tilak worth Rs. 1 lakh and other domestic appliances worth Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant’s father had to fulfill the demand, being pressurized by the accused persons, prior to the marriage, which was solemnized on 20.11.2011. But the complainant’s family members were abused during the reception ceremony, inspite of the demand having been fulfilled and further demand was made after marriage. The further accusation is that the husband of the complainant deciphered the passwords of the e-mail and facebook accounts of the complainant and unauthorizedly accessed the accounts, much prior to the marriage and continued doing so even after marriage. The complainant and her husband left for Bangalore in the month of November, 2011, where the complainant was working as Software Engineer, from before. Even at Bangalore mental torture was inflicted at the hands of the husband and further demand of luxurious items were made, for the fulfillment of which cash amount was transferred in the account of the complainant by her mother. The complainant alleges to have suffered abortion due to the continuous torture and that all attempts to pacify the accused persons failed, which led to the filing of Complaint Case No. 1895C of 2012 on 05.07.2012 which came to be registered as a police case, being Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012 on 11.07.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 379, 383, 406, 420 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. On conclusion of investigation, final form (charge sheet) was submitted on 31.5.2013 and consequently the order of cognizance was passed on 14.6.2013, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna directed for issuance of process after taking cognizance under Sections 341,323 and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Other accused petitioners except husband R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
