The court held that general allegations lacking specifics do not suffice to establish a case under Section 498A IPC, necessitating substantial evidence for taking cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Irfanul Haque, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Ms. Rekha Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel for OP No.2 and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Mahila PS Case No.09 of 2024 (Sup. G.R. Case No.6 of 2024) (G.R. Case No.375/24) by the learned SDJM, Samastipur, whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 498A of IPC and Sections ¾ of D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution story in short is that the marriage of the informant (O.P. No.2) solemnized with the petitioner (Sarfe Alam) on 28.06.2023 as per the Muslim customs at Azad Chowk, Dharampur, P.S. Town, District Samastipur and both the parties (petitioner and OP No.2) were living happily as husband and wife but just after two months of the marriage, the behaviour of the petitioner towards OP No.2 changed and he started demanding one Bike and Rs.2 lac in cash and due to the non-fulfilment of his demand, the petitioner fled away leaving her alone, thereafter, she went at her in-laws house at Darbhanga where allegedly she was assaulted by the family members of her in-laws i.e. father-in-law (Md. Anwarool), mother-in-law (Nasra Khatoon), Bhaisur (Nazri Alam and Sadre Alam) brother-in-law (Md. Ashif), Sister-in-law (Chandan Praween), Mausera brother (Md. Ibrar) and they ousted her from the house. She further alleged that her husband stopped giving response to her phone calls. On the basis of the said information of the informant, Mahila PS Case No.09/2024 had been registered under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against altogether eight accused persons including the petitioner. The Police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet, bearing No.95/24 dated 13.08.2024 under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections ¾ of DP Act against the petitioner and other co-accused and on the basis of the said report, the learned SDJM, Samastipur took cognizance under Sections, 341, 323, 504, 506 & 498A of IPC and Sections ¾ of, vide order dated 29.08.2024 against which the present application has been filed.

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that prior to the present case, the informant had solemnized marriage with one Md. Suleman in the year, 2011 and she gave birth to a child namely, Shabrin Khatoon but unfortunately her husband died, thereafter, she started working in I.M.C. Company where she developed intimacy with one Vikrant Kumar but he left her and she filed complaint petition bearing No.851 of 2020 and subsequently Warisnagar PS Case No.260 of 2020 dated 18.11.2020 under Sections 323, 342, 354, 406, 420, 376, 504, 506, 120(B) and 34 of IPC and Sections ¾ of DP Act against Vikrant Kumar and others, in which the final form has been submitted by the Police, vide Final Form No.180/22 dated 12.07.2022.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no case as alleged is made out. He submitted that on the basis of false accusation the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the alleged offence which had occurred between 28.08.2021 to 05.02.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged on 11.02.2024 without giving satisfactory explanation of such a long delay which creates doubt about the falsity of the case .

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has already divorced OP No.2 under the pr