The Court quashed the FIR against distant relatives accused in a dowry case, emphasizing the need for specific allegations rather than general and omnibus claims in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing the order dated 14.08.2023 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2021 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st, Bhagalpur erroneously partly allowed the Revision Application of O.P. no. 2 and hold that the prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners and set aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur.

3. The brief fact of this case as per FIR, the informant/ O.P. No. 2 namely, Neha Kumari solemnized her marriage on 19.11.2017 with co-accused namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu, son of Late Laxmi Narayan, resident of Khadi Bhandar, Shastri Nagar, Chitragupt Mandir road, near to Bharti Niketan School, P.S.- Bagarmithanpura, District Muzaffarpur. It is alleged that the petitioners including other co-accused persons started torturing O.P. No. 2 physically and mentally after solemnization of marriage due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for Rs. 2 lakh. It is also pointed out that in connection with alleged aforesaid demand on 06.10.2019, her husband namely Aditya Kumar @ Dipu came to her paternal home with both petitioners and again demanded Rs. 2 lakh. Lastly it is stated that her husband solemnized two marriage prior to her and this fact was concealed from her.

4. With aforesaid allegations/informatio Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 was lodged against petitioners and other named co-accused persons on 10.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 498(A) and 34 of IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law of the husband of the O.P. No. 2 whereas petitioner no. 2 is the maternal uncle/mausa of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and they are distant relatives, admittedly living separately and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It is submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against the husband of informant/ O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out that as informant came to know about the previous marriages of her husband, the present case was lodged falsely and entire family members including relatives total of 9 members made accused with present case. It is submitted that the allegations qua raising demand of dowry for Rs. 2 lakh is appearing very much general and omnibus against petitioner and they are implicated only being relatives of the husband.

6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate not find a prima-facie case against petitioners and therefore, no cognizance was taken but the informant/ O.P. No. 2 filed a Revision petition before the Sessions court, as Cr. Rev. No. 30 of 2021, where the cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 was set aside and thereafter, on the basis of revisional order only, the cognizance was taken against petitioners. It is submitted that the revisional court failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects as discussed and merely on the ground that as petitioners visited along with husband of O.P. No. 2 to paternal house of O.P. No. 2, they were implicated with present case. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

7. Mr. Devendra Kr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submitted that petitioners are the persons who negotiated the marriage between the parties. It is pointed out that