The judgment emphasizes the need for specific instances of involvement in crimes and the potential misuse of section 498A of the IPC in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. By order dated 28.03.2018, notices were directed to be issued upon the O.P.No.2. Office note dated 10.05.2018 suggest that notices upon O.P.No.2 has been effected validly. Inspite of notice, which was served on 02.05.2018 appearance has not been made on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. Today on repeated call, nobody responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

3. Accordingly, this petition is heard on merit in absence of O.P.No.2.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No.20/2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.05.2017, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad proceeded against all accused persons u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

5. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that:

That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner no.1 on 06.05.2011 and thereafter she lived with her husband at the matrimonial home;

That it is alleged that the accused persons started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry, and on refusal the accused persons started torturing her;

That earlier the complainant had also filed C.P.Case No.2969/13 and another G.R.Case No.3121/14;

That the complainant has also filed one maintenance case being M.P.Case No.106/14 before the Family Court, Dhanbad;

That it is alleged that on 31.12.2016 at 6.00 p.m., the complainant on her mobile phone received threatening to withdraw all cases; and

That finally on 01.01.2017 at 8.00 a.m. all accused persons came to complainant’s maike and abused the complainant and her family members. That it is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted and threatened of dire consequences.

6. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the marriage solemnized between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.1, the husband, who is petitioner no.1, was very disturbed due to hot temperament and abusing nature of O.P.No.2 who never wanted to live together in the joint family. That the petitioner no.1 became so apprehensive of some mishaps due to behaviour of O.P.No.2 that he filed an informatory information petition no.680/2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur stating therein that the O.P.No.2 was not only ruining her life but also the life of petitioner and his parents, and finally, the petitioner no.2 made a complaint vide S.D.No.862/12 dated 31.12.2012 before the police apprehending institution of false cases against them. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 has been disowned by his parents due to perpetual disturbance caused by O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.1 was residing in a separate rented house with his wife O.P.No.2. He submits that marital relation between the petitioner no.1 and O.P.No.2 reached to such a point that the petitioner no.1 filed a Matrimonial Suit No.459/2013 for divorce on 16.09.2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur and the same was admitted and notice was issued on 01.10.2013 upon the O.P.No.2. After getting notice of divorce case, O.P.No.2 filed a C.P.Case No.2969/2013 on 18.11.2013 against petitioner nos.1,2, 3 and 4 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad was taken cognizance of the offences u/s 498A/34 IPC and u/s 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3. She again filed another case, which was numbered as Dhanbad P.S.Case No.684 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014 registered under section 498A/336/504/506 IPC and u/s 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner nos.1,2,3 and 4 in which learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits both the aforesaid criminal case making almost same allegations have been filed by the O.P.No.2 to harass and humiliate the petitioners particularly the petitioner nos.5,6,7 and 8 who have no concern with the family affairs of the petitioner no.1 and O.P.No.2. He submits that