Specific allegations are required against accused in dowry-related complaints to prevent misuse of legal provisions, especially concerning relatives.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. It is to be noted that despite valid service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2, no one appears on her behalf.

3. The petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned A.D.J.- 3rd, Bhojpur at Ara in Cr. Rev. No. 178 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2644 of 2014 whereby the learned court has rejected the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner after being found no infirmity in the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara summoning the accused persons to face trial after taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication of the matter are that the marriage of the complainant was solemnised with Abhay Anand on 13.03.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Soon after the marriage, the complainant was subjected to demand of dowry at the hands of all the accused persons and on account of non-fulfillment of the same, she was tortured and assaulted by various means and finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that the complainant has blessed with two girl child and despite that her husband subsequently solemnised his marriage with Sujita Devi, daughter of Jagdish Pandit. On 30.01.2013, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after taking her signature on blank paper. With the aforenoted allegation, the complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 2644 of 2014 was filed.

5. The solemn affirmation of the complainant was recorded. The statement of the complainant’s witnesses, namely, Suresh Chandra Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Manju Devi were also recorded and on being found, prima facie, materials constituting offence under Section 498A, 494, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code summons were issued to the petitioner along with other accused persons. The order taking cognizance, summoning the accused persons was put to challenge by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2018, however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2020 which is questioned before this Court by filing the present application.

6. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is none else but the brother-in-law of the complainant who has been serving as a Constable in Air Force and at present he is working as a Constable, Air Force Station, Kanheri Hills. The certificate in this regard has been issued by the Wing Officer, Air Force Station, Kanheri Hills, copy of which has been brought on record by filing the supplementary affidavit.

7. Prior to the institution of the present complaint, the complainant had instituted an FIR bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2013 on 25.02.2013 with exactly identical allegation under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation set forth in the FIR was investigated and final form has been submitted vide Final Report No. 11 of 2013 dated 31.003.2013 wherein the petitioner and two others have not been sent up for trial, copy of the final report has been placed on record as Annexure-2(i).

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the averments made in the complaint petition as well as the solemn affirmation of the complainant and vigorously contended that the solemn affirmation clearly suggests that the entire allegation revolves around the husband and there is no whisper with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the present crime. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken to this Court to the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2018 and urged before this Court that the lea