The court upheld the validity of the cognizance of offences under IPC Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, emphasizing that allegations of cruelty and dowry demands were sufficient to proceed.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned APP for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.03.2015 passed in Hayaghat P.S. case No. 42 of 2014 dated 12.07.2014 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga whereby which cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P.Act) has been taken against the accused persons, including the petitioner.

3. Heard both sides, perused the impugned order, the F.I.R. and other relevant materials.

4. The main ground taken by the petitioner’s counsel to assail the order impugned is that the O.P. No.2 was wife of the petitioner and on 26.02.2014 the petitioner divorced the O.P. No.2 by sending an e-mail to the O.P. No.2 revealing three talak text and the same was also messaged through SMS on her mobile No. and the said divorce has been accepted by the O.P. No.2 in her F.I.R. and after divorce the O.P. No.2 filed written complaint on 28.04.2014 at the concerned P.S. and the same was lodged with malafide intention. In support of this ground the petitioner’s counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Achin Gupta v. the State of Haryana and others in Cr. Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 and placed reliance upon the paragraphs No. 18 and 19 of this judgement which are being reproduced herein below:-

18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.

19. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members.

5. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner’s counsel upon the judgement of Karnataka High Court passed in CRL. P. No.201257/2019 and the relevant paragraph of this judgement is being reproduced herein below:-

“6 ----------- On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present case, the respondent No.2 lodged the written complaint, which carries four pages. The complaint contains several allegations against the petitioners. However, till 25.12.2018, she has not lodged any complaint against the in-laws. In the complaint there is specific allegation about assault made out against all the petitioners. However, it appears that the allegations are omnibus and absurd in nature and the said allegations are not sufficient to invoke the provisions as stated supra. Unless, there are no allegations made out against each petitioners independently, it cannot be construed that the petitioners have committed the offence. Regard being had to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of the respondent No.2 had filed divorce petition on 17.12.2018 at Solapur Family Court. As a token of retaliation, the respondent No.2 filed complaint against all the petitioners assumes greater significance. Therefore, the criminal case filed by the wife, in respect of cruelty, dowry harassment against the husband and in-laws loses its significance, in case the complaint is made, after receivin