The judgment emphasizes the requirement of prima facie evidence to support the charge sheet and the SMS in cases where the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is invoked.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Seraidhela P.S.Case No.147/2019, corresponding to G.R.No.2607 of 2020 whereby cognizance of offence under sections 498- A/307 IPC and also under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 3/ 4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. In short, the written complaint was filed before the police, alleging therein that :

The marriage of the son of the petitioner with the opposite party no.2 on 5.3.2017. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.20 lakh in cheque and Rs.5 lakh cash along with jewelleries and household articles. Further on demand of accused no.1 a Audi Car was also given taking loan from bank. After few days, she was subjected to cruelty. After a while she became mother of daughter, the accused persons did not mend their ways and continued with acts of cruelty against the informant. She was asked to get more dowry and further the accused persons also called informant’s mother as Daain and also send SMS branding her as witch. On 25.2.2019 the son of the petitioner had struck the informant with danda on head and also tried to kill her by strangulating her. The informant then came to her parent house and underwent treatment. The accused persons did not mend their ways even after intervention by the parents of the informant to reconcile between them. The son of the petitioner further gave threat that he would kill the informant.

4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow lady who happens to be mother in law of the O.P.No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged in this case. He submits that in the entire complaint, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the allegations are against the son of this petitioner who happens to be husband of the O.P.No.2. He further submits that the son of the petitioner filed A.B.A. No.6733 of 2019 which was allowed by order dated 04.12.2019 with condition that he will return a sum of Rs.31 lakhs and the Audi car to the informant and on that ground the anticipatory bail was granted. He submits that in terms of the order a sum of Rs.31 lakhs has already been returned to the informant. He further submits that divorce suit has been filed by the son of the petitioner which was numbered as Original Suit No.230/2020 and the marriage was annulled by order dated 26.03.2021. He submits that although the informant has challenged that decree of divorce before this Court which is pending and that was numbered as F.A. No.30 of 2021. He draws the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2 and by way of referring the paragraphs submits that even in the counter affidavit in clear terms nothing has been stated against the petitioner who is mother in law of the O.P.No.2. He further elaborated his argument by way of submitting that in the case arising out of section 498-A IPC the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated arraying the entire family members and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of “Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand”, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Paragraph nos. 32 and 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow :-

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar