Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Anandi Jha @ Anandi Chaudhary wife of Arvind Kumar Choudhary and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25832 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 148 Year- 2012 Thana-Dhaka District-East Champaran (Motihari)
Decided On : 11-10-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Mr. Sanket and Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, Mr. Baidyanath Thakur
Vague and general allegations without specific overt acts do not justify prosecution, and continuing such prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:
Malicious Prosecution - Quashing of Order - Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A, 323, 504, 34
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, husband's sister and mother-in-law, sought quashing of the order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were implicated in a case of malicious prosecution involving demands of dowry and acts of cruelty against the informant's husband.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations were vague and general, with no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It also considered unimpeachable documents and previous judgments to conclude that the petitioners were falsely implicated, and further prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process.
Issues: The issues involved the false implication of family members in a case of malicious prosecution, the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners, and the abuse of the court's process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on unimpeachable documents and previous judgments to establish that vague and general allegations without specific overt acts do not justify prosecution. It also emphasized that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons against the petitioners, concluding that further prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process.
A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Motihari.
2. Perused the show cause. For the reasons stated therein, the show cause is accepted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
4. The petitioner no. 1 is the Nanad (husband’s sister) and the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the informant-opposite party no. 2. Both the petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 148 of 2012 by which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused including the present petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very first instance submits that this is a case of malicious prosecution involving each and every member of the family of the husband of the informant. He would submit that in the F.I.R., apart from the husband, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the elder brother, the wife of the elder brother and the married sister (petitioner no. 1), all have been implicated on the strength of general and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry leading to act of cruelty. Learned counsel submits that in fact the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 has already died during pendency of his application for quashing of the order taking cognizance but a co-ordinate bench of this Court while considering the quashing application vide Cr. Misc. No. 52624/2013, filed on behalf of the elder brother and the wife of the elder brother of the husband, came to a conclusion that it was a case of malicious prosecution and, accordingly, quashed the impugned order dated 04.09.2013 as against the petitioners in the said case.
6. Learned counsel has referred the First Information Report (Annexure-1) wherein it is alleged that the informant was married to accused Jitendra Kumar (brother of petitioner no. 1 and son of petitioner no. 2) according to Maithili customs following the Hindu’s ceremonies on 04.03.2009. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of the informant had, according to their capacity, spent a sum of rupees ten lakhs on furniture, ornaments, clothes, etc. The allegation was that the elder brother of the husband created a number of obstacles in marriage and was demanding one Alto Car but, later on, with the intervention of the Naihar people of the informant they agreed to do the Vidai ceremony. It is specifically alleged thereafter that the accused Jitendra Kumar asked for 15 Bhar Gold, one Alto Car, one lakh rupees in cash saying that this is the common decision of the family. She has alleged act of cruelty against her husband. It is further alleged that when accused no. 1, 2 and 5 came for purpose of Vidai, there also they demanded Gold, Alto Car and ornaments.
7. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the general and omnibus allegations bringing within the ambit of the allegations vaguely all other family members including the present petitioners. Learned counsel submits that in fact there is not a single word specifically indicating any overt act committed by these two petitioners. It is his further submission that even in course of investigation police could not collect any independent material to substantiate the allegations against these petitioners.
8. By filing a Supplementary Affidavit learned counsel has brought on record a marriage certificate of the petitioner no. 1 showing that she was married to a Nepali citizen on 09.06.2003 and thereafter she has adopted/got Nepali citizenship. The marriage certificate has been issued by Local Development Ministry, Registration Branch, Government of Nepal. It is her case that after her marriage she has been residing in Nepal from 2003 onwards b
