The central legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the need for circumspection in proceeding against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar assisted by Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 30.03.2016 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 189 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1775 of 2015 registered under Sections 498(A)/494/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. The FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that she was married to Sanjeev Kumar on 26.02.2001. At the time of marriage, her father had given Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash as dowry and spend about Rs. 5,00,000/- but her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the same. They were eager for more dowry in spite of their rude behaviour, her father had given draft of Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- in cash to her husband in March, 2002, but his attitude could not be changed and she was being tortured mentally and physically. It was further alleged that in 2005, her husband had lodged a Matrimonial Suit for divorce but when she appeared then on 02.02.2007 the husband assured that he will never torture her and in spite of all that she resided peacefully in her in-laws house. In 2009, her father died and her mother died in 2012. It was also alleged that on 10.08.2014 her husband and mother-in-law started assaulting her for want of dowry on account of which her right hand fractured and her husband snatched her entire ornaments and on 01.05.2015 her husband came with his one friend at Giridih residence and by that time brother and sister of mother-in-law started assaulting her and told that they have got second marriage of her husband solemnized with one Niharika who is student of Sitamarhi. The marriage was solemnized at the instance of her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law. She has further alleged that her father had purchased one flat at Ranchi and her husband wants to grab that and said her that if she wants to survive, execute a deed in his favour and has further claimed that husband and other in-laws are hurling threat with dire consequences. She has also stated that her husband is doing some construction work at Darbhanga. On the basis of the said information, the present case has been registered.

4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the landlord of the husband of opposite party no. 2, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 is the daughter of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. He further submits that there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners are nowhere related with other co-accused persons rather since Sanjeev Kumar once upon a time was residing as tenant in the house of petitioner no. 1 and on account of good relation between the families, the informant has dragged the petitioners in the present case. He further submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and the case has been registered under Section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjula Sinha vs. State of U.P. (2007) 12 SCC 503.

5. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below:

“9. On a reading of the complaint which appears at p. 23 of the paper-book, it is clear that there is no allegation so far as the respondent is concerned, so far as it relates to a case covered under Section 498-A IPC. There is no allegation of any torture for dowry so far as the present appellant is concerned. The position is different so far as the allegations in relation to Section 406 IPC are concerned.

10. There are allegations contained in the FIR relating to the applicability of Section 406 IPC. If ultimately the prosecutio