Back
2022 Supreme(Pat) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Shiwangi Prabhat W/o Lieutenant Commandar Amit Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 470 of 2022
Decided On : 15-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ramakant Sharma, Shama Sinha.
For the Respondent: Iqbal Asif Niazi.
For the Informants : Y.C. Verma, Vishal Vikram Rana.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific instances of involvement in alleged crimes, the potential abuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes, and the importance of scrutinizing complaints with care and circumspection.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Matrimonial Dispute - Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the allegations under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, emphasizing the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime and the potential abuse of the provision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition to quash a First Information Report (FIR) related to a matrimonial dispute, alleging harassment and dowry demands against the sisters-in-law of the informant. The petitioners argued that the allegations were vague and ornamental, and the prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and ornamental, and there was no specific act or omission attributed to them. Uncontroverted materials suggested that the petitioners were being prosecuted to pressure the husband, and the court noted the potential abuse of the provision in matrimonial disputes.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the allegations against the sisters-in-law, the potential abuse of the legal provisions in matrimonial disputes, and the need for specific instances of involvement in the alleged crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific instances of involvement in the alleged crime, the potential abuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes, and the importance of scrutinizing complaints with care and circumspection.
Final Decision: The court quashed the First Information Report as it related to the petitioners, citing the vague and ornamental nature of the allegations and the potential abuse of the court's process.
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Shama Sinha, learned Advocate, Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the informant assisted by Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP 5 for the State.
2. This application has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash and cancel the First Information Report giving rise to Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 397 of 2021 dated 15.09.2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, an arranged marriage was performed between the brother of these two petitioners and the informant on 06.05.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. The brother of the petitioners was working in Jubel (Saudi Arabia) and the marriage negotiation had taken place between the father of both the sides. It is alleged that after marriage while husband of the informant left for his job, she stayed with her in-laws. The allegation is that immediately after her husband left for Saudi Arabia, the in-laws started harassing the informant. It is stated that the husband of the informant came to Muzaffarpur in May 2019 but when the informant told him about the harassment at the hands of the in-laws, he ignored the same and returned to Saudi Arabia leaving the informant with her in-laws.
It is further alleged that the informant got pregnant but even at this stage, there was no change in the behaviour of her in-laws. She was advised rest but was forced to do daily chores and on objecting her father-in-law would drag her to kitchen and choke the informant. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law would slap her and sisters-in-law would verbally abuse her. It is stated that the informant was blessed with a baby girl on 08.01.2020 but despite the birth of a girl child, the in-laws continued their abuse and did not show any interest even in the girl child. When the informant allegedly tried to return to her matrimonial home, her in-laws did not allow her to enter and demanded a dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. It is lastly alleged that even the husband of the informant did not talk to her and did not contact her. She was not allowed to enter into her matrimonial home whereafter she was compelled to return to her father’s home. A copy of the First Information Report has been placed on record as Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is married sister-in-law of the informant. She is working as an Assistant Professor since 14.07.2018. Petitioner no. 2 is unmarried sister-in-law who is studying in Delhi and is residing there. It is further informed that the petitioner no. 1 is married to a Naval Officer since 09.02.2014 who was earlier posted at Mumbai and is presently posted at Delhi. Petitioner no. 1 has one daughter who is a child with special needs and is undergoing therapy in Delhi.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it would appear from persual of the First Information Report itself that no allegations much less any allegation constituting an offence under Section 498A or Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act would be made out against these petitioners. It is submitted that it is a case of false implication of these two petitioners who have nothing to do with the personal relationship of the informant with her husband.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these two petitioners had hardly any occasion to stay with the informant after her marriage and in fact the petitioner no. 1 started avoiding staying in her parents’ house after marriage of the informant noticing her conducts.
7. It is further submitted that on a bare perusal of the First Information Report, it would appear that the marriage was fixed by the father of both the sides. These petitioners had no role to play in the said marriage
