The court ruled that relatives of accused cannot be implicated in dowry-related complaints absent specific allegations; familial ties should not equate to liability.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. The present quashing petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) by the above-named petitioners for quashing of the order dated 01.03.2024 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City in connection with Patna Complaint Case No.155 (C) of 2024 titled as Asmita Kumari vs. Kunal Yadav and Ors. whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 420, 406, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘ IPC ’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is presently pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna city.

2. The case of prosecution is based upon the written report of one Asmita Kumari/complainant/O.P. No.2 alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the accused No. 1 namely, Kunal @ Kunal Yadav (who is not a petitioner) as per Hindu rites and rituals on 12.06.2022 at Patna. It is alleged that the engagement ceremony of the complainant/O.P. No.2 with the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav was organized at Hotel Maurya Patna, for which an expense of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) occurred, and the same was solely borne by the father of the complainant. The complainant further alleged in the complaint that the marriage expense of Rs. 12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lacs) was also borne by the father of the complainant, which the accused persons allegedly refused to share the same. It is further alleged by the complainant that her father has gifted her cash worth Rs. 35,00,000/- (rupees thirty five lacs), gold and silver jewellery worth Rs. 6,75,000/-(rupees six lacs seventy five thousand) cash worth Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lacs) for purchase of car and cash amount worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lacs) for purchase of household items. Cash as mentioned aforesaid was allegedly handed over to the accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3, namely, Kunal Yadav, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi. It is further alleged that cash worth Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs) was handed over to accused No. 5 namely, Shri Sunil Kumar for purchase of car on 08.05.2022. The complainant further alleged that after solemnization of her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home situated at Kankarbagh, Patna. She was treated well by all the accused persons for first few months. It is alleged that the behavior of the accused persons deteriorated thereafter, and then accused persons raised a further dowry demand for cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lacs) for purchase of a flat. The complainant was pressurized to bring such amount from her father and when she refused to do so, then the complainant was subjected to verbal and physical abuse. The complainant allegedly was induced by the accused nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6, namely, Anjani Kumar, Uma Devi, Sunil Kumar and Pinki Kumari to transfer an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- (rupees eleven lacs only) through installments in the name of repairing of her matrimonial home situated at Patna. The inducement was allegedly supported by the accused no. 4, namely Priyanka Priyadarshi through her personal presence or virtually through mobile call. It is further alleged that at the instance of accused nos. 2 & 4, namely, Anjani Kumar and Priyanka Priyadarshi, the accused no. 1 Kunal @ Kunal Yadav used to take the EMI amount of the flat, which was purchased by him at Bengaluru (Karnataka) from the complainant. Moreover, it was also alleged that her whole salary was spent by the accused persons for their house-hold goods and expenditure. It is f