Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Swopnajeet Mohapatra S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Mahapatra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 542 of 2022
Decided On : 29-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pravashankar Mishra.
For the Respondent: Divya Verma, Arun Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations in matrimonial disputes must be specific and substantiated, particularly when involving relatives, to prevent misuse of legal provisions and ensure justice.
Headnote:
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF FIR - IPC SECTIONS 323, 498A; DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT SECTIONS 3/4 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and cruelty to a woman, respectively. It also referenced Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which address the prohibition of dowry and penalties for giving or taking dowry. The court interpreted these sections in light of the allegations made in the FIR, emphasizing the need for specific instances of involvement rather than omnibus allegations against relatives. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to quash the FIR against the petitioners, as the allegations were deemed improbable and lacking in substantiation.
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. This writ application has been preferred invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash and cancel the first information report being Mahila P.S. Case No. 138 of 2021 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners also prayed for providing protection as they have imminent threat to their life and liberty.
Brief facts of the case
2. The writ application was initially filed on behalf of three petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the respondent no. 4. According to the statements made in the writ application, he is having a brilliant academic and professional career throughout his life. He is currently the Organization Head designated as Vice President (Head of Strategy, CEO’s Office), Nayara Energy Limited at Mumbai.
3. The petitioner no. 2 is a Retired District & Session Judge, Bhubaneswar who has served in various districts of Orissa as a Judicial Officer for thirty-five long years having a very successful and unblemished career record throughout. He is the father of petitioner no. 1 and father-in-law of respondent no. 4. Petitioner no. 3 is a retired School Teacher of Government Girls High School, Badasankha, Puri, Orissa. She is the mother of petitioner no. 1 and mother-in-law of respondent no. 4.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a love-cum-arranged marriage of petitioner no. 1 with respondent no. 4 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. The respondent no. 4 came to Mumbai after spending two weeks’ time in Bhubaneshwar and started living together in a rented house. They got a baby born out of the wedlock. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 together purchased a flat at Mumbai with a booking amount of Rs.27,000/-. The petitioner no. 1 was traveling to various countries for business, hence, he used to transfer the money to the informant so that she can arrange for the builder’s payments directly. The interior of the flat was completed in the year 2016 thereafter they shifted to new house in March, 2016. At this stage, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were invited to attend the house warming ceremony.
5. It seems that over the period, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 fell apart. At this stage, this Court need not take note of each and every detail furnished by the petitioners in the writ application. Suffice is to say that petitioner no. 1 filed a petition in the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa for dissolution of marriage and according to him, two summons were served upon respondent no. 4 but she did not appear in the court, instead she went to Patna, Bihar to her father’s place and lodged a complaint with Mahila Police Station with her ulterior motive of merely harassing the petitioners and bring disrepute by lowering the relation.
Contents of the complaint
6. It is stated in the FIR that respondent no. 4 is employed on the post of General Manager in Reliance Industries Limited since the year 2007 and at the time of lodging of the FIR, she was residing at Patna in the residence of her father, it was Covid-19 period and she was working from home. According to her complaint, the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant was solemnized on 19.08.2008 at Patna whereafter the informant went to her husband’s place at Bhubaneshwar and lived with him for few days. It is stated that thereafter she came to her work place at Mumbai and was living with her husband.
It is alleged that over the period, since the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant had retired from service, they were called at Mumbai and they started living together. It is alleged that during their stay, the mother-in-law and father-in-law started interfering with day-to-day affairs of the informant which led to domestic disturbances. At this stage, it is alleged by way of an example that the informant pur
