Quashing of dowry harassment charges requires clear allegations; vague complaints against in-laws must be scrutinized to prevent misuse of law.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nawadah in Complaint Case No. 1033 of 2022, where cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A, 341, 323 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

3. Despite service Opposite Party No. 2 failed to join the present Court proceedings.

4. From the crux of complaint petition it appears that marriage of complainant was solemnized with one Md. Shahabuddin on 25.11.2016, where gold jewellery of Rs. 4 Lakh and utensils of Rs. 2 Lakh were given as gift, at the time of marriage Md. Shahabuddin was working in MNC at United Kingdom. It is alleged that when her husband left job, her in-laws started torturing her and took away all the jewelleries. Presently Md. Shahabuddin is employed in TCS at Kolkata. After some days of marriage Md. Shahabuddin along with his family members started torturing and demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs from O.P. No. 2, which was fulfilled by father of O.P. No. 2. It is alleged that O.P. No. 2 never got any money for her personal expenses. After a year of her marriage she got pregnant and was cared by her family members not by her husband and in-laws and delivered a boy namely Md. Yazanuddin. Upon being assaulted by in-laws O.P. No. 2 lodged a police case as Golabari P.S. as GDN 2049 dated 20.03.2018 and left her matrimonial home. Upon persuasion of her father O.P. No. 2 again tried to join her matrimonial home, where in-laws pressurized to hand over child to sister-in-law, but upon reluctance O.P. No. 2 was assaulted and detained on room in 26.09.2019 with her child and was released with help of local residents. For the aforesaid act of 26.09.2019 complaint was lodged in Howrah Police Station vide GDN 2481 and left her matrimonial home. Upon counseling dated 07.08.2019 and 20.09.2019 O.P. No. 2 again joined her matrimonial home and was assaulted and tortured again by her in- laws and a further complaint was lodged in local police station vide GDN 1048 dated 15.10.2019. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home. When reconciliation took place between them her in-laws again demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs, but on being pressurized by in-laws her parents agreed for O.P. No. 2 to join her matrimonial home. Again on 11.06.2022 O.P. No. 2 was badly assaulted and was tried to be killed by setting her on fire, upon alarm local residents saved her. Since, then O.P. No. 2 has been residing at her parents home. When her parents tried to convince Md. Shahabuddin again, they all in one voice demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs. Md. Shahabuddin consummated his second marriage.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint, no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the reasons that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is elder brother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is wife of petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 4 is son of petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 5 & 6 are sisters-in-law, petitioner no. 7 is younger brother-in-law and petitioner no. 8 is husband of petitioner no. 5. It is submitted that petitioners are living separately and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is submitted that their implication appears only out of being close relative with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and misuse of provision