General allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes require specific accusations to avoid quashing of FIR under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

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

2. The present quashing petitions preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as to quash the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Patna, where Criminal Revision 271 of 2021 preferred by petitioners was dismissed, challenging the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patna, where learned J.M. took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 9385 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 158 of 2018.

3. The case of prosecution speaks in brief that O.P. No. 2 namely Sudarshana Jyoti alleged that her marriage was arranged with Nishikant in 2017. She claimed that Nishikant forcibly established physical relations with her. Later on 19.12.2017, both applied for marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act at Samastipur, but Nishikant subsequently refused to attend the scheduled marriage in January 2018, whereafter her family members approached Nishikant’s family. It is alleged that, despite having already received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards marriage related expenses, the accused persons further made an unlawful demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- as dowry, in contravention of the provisions of the D.P. Act. The marriage was scheduled again for 09.02.2018, but when the informant’s relatives visited the petitioners’ house with gifts, they remained adamant about their dowry demand and continued harassment. A complaint was also made to the Mahila Police Station, but it was in vain. The informant further alleged that on 24.08.2018, when she visited the petitioners’ house again requesting her marriage, Nishikant and other family members assaulted her, causing severe injuries, including a fracture in her finger. They also allegedly refused to return Rs. 1 lakh and threatened to kill her. It was subsequently revealed to the informant that accused Nishikant was in the process of finalizing marriage with another woman for dowry, and that he had a consistent pattern of deceitfully inducing marriage by misrepresenting his age and income, with the ulterior motive of extracting dowry, thereby committing offences punishable under the I.P.C. & D.P. Act, 1961.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that an FIR was lodged on 15.10.2018, with an unexplained delay of 7 months after the alleged incident. Prior to this FIR, the informant had filed a complaint on 09.03.2018 at Mahila Thana, Patna only accusing Nishikant (now deceased) of refusing marriage. It is also submitted that there were no allegations of sexual assault or dowry against other family members. It is also submitted that the FIR has been lodged as an afterthought, maliciously implicating Nishikant’s entire family.

5. It is further submitted that upon due investigation, the police did not find any credible evidence establishing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. A final form/closure report (Supplementary Chargesheet No. 61/2019 dated 31.07.2019) was submitted, exonerating the petitioners. It is pointed out from the perusal of the FIR and from the statement of the informant as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the Court took cognizance on 19.07.2021 for offences punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Countering