The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for extreme caution in dealing with complaints under Section 498-A IPC, the potential misuse of the provision, and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without proper deliberation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. At the outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 has left of his heavenly abode that is why by order dated 30.03.2022 the name of the petitioner no. 2 was directed to be deleted and the same has been done. He submits that now he confines prayer only with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 3. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.07.2013 passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 2118 of 2008 whereby discharge petition filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

4. The complaint has been filed alleging therein the marriage between opposite party no.2 and Uttam Kumar Rai was solemnized on 10.02.2007 at Dhanbad and all the demanded articles were given to the accused persons except car and due to which the accused persons made a hot exchange of ward with the family members of the opposite party no. 2 but the family members of the complainant accepted to give the car later on. After the marriage, Opp. Party No. 2 was being taken at Muzaffarpur and reached there on 12.2.2007. During the course of journey the accused persons taunted her for not giving the car and in her Sasural at Muzaffarpur she was maltreated and tortured by the accused persons mentally and physically. When the complainant was insisting to live with her husband at New Delhi then all the accused persons became so enraged that they assaulted her causing serious pain on her body and provoking her to commit suicide and when this fact was made known to the family member of the opposite party no.2 then her brother Rajiv Sharma came and requested not to be so harsh with the complainant. Anyhow, her brother brought to her at Delhi and they went to the house of her husband and asked to keep the complainant but accused persons have refused to give shelter to the complainant in Delhi's house and they were abused and seeing of no alternative, the brother of Opp. party No.2 brought her back in the end of July 2008. On 7th August, 2008, the accused persons were invited on the occasion of GRIH PRAWESH in a new Flat of the complainant's family to which, they arrived and started abusing the entire family members of the complainant for not giving the car as per the promise and ultimately they gave ultimatum that unless the car is being given they will not keep the complainant in her Sasural. In the month of October, the complainant was taken to Muzaffarpur by her brother and sister, where the accused persons have refused to keep her and seeing no alternative, the complainant requested her husband to return her Stridhan to which, she was abused and refused to return the Stridhan and since then the complainant is residing at Dhanbad with her mother and facing mental agony. The family members of the complainant took back the complainant to her SASURAL but the accused persons have refused. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint has been filed.

5. On the basis of the said complainant, a Complaint Case No. 2118/2008 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. He submits that so far as these two petitioners are concerned there are only general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners but the learned court has dismissed the petition filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. He submits that in the solemn affirmation of the complainant, she has not taken the name of the these two petitioners. He