The judgment emphasized that the provisions of Section 498A should not be misused for oblique motives and should be based on genuine cases of dowry harassment.

JUDGMENT :

The instant Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Appellant-Sangeeta Kumari against Mukul Prasad and State of Jharkhand wherein the impugned Judgment dated 22.12.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 allowed the Cr. Appeal and set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2019 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 whereby the learned trial court had held guilty to the petitioner Mukul Prasad for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced with imprisonment for one and half year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of fine, convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

2. The brief facts of the Complaint Case leading to this Appeal are that the complainant filed the complaint against Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad, Malti Devi, Pushpa and Dolly with these allegations that the complainant was married with Mukul Prasad on 06.06.2009 at Ranchi in which the complainant spent approximately Rs. 8,00,000/- including jewellery/stridhan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. After the said marriage, accused persons took the complainant to the matrimonial house at Karai village, Police Station Karai, District-Nalanda (Bihar). From very first day at the matrimonial house the complainant was taunted and humiliated for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts for her-in-laws by the accused Mukul Prasad, Pushpa and Dolly particularly. Accused No.1 Mukul Prasad also taunted the complainant that the Car was not given to him by her parents. The complainant also came to know at her matrimonial house that her husband Mukul Prasad was working at Aligarh was not willing to continue his job there. Her husband was in habit of leaving jobs and he returned to Dhanbad or to his native village Karai. Her husband either on one pretext or the other created the situation in which the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home within four days from the marriage and came back to her parental house at Ranchi. The complainant while leaving the matrimonial home was not permitted to carry her stridhan. It was also assured by her husband that he would come in a day or two to bring her back to the matrimonial house at Dhanbad from Ranchi. The complainant had been waiting for her husband that he would come to take her back to the matrimonial house but he did not turn up and even did not give his contact number and his whereabouts was not known to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant herself joined one Barclays Shared Service Private Limited at Noida Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter on several occasion the accused No.4 and 5 Pushpa and Dolly both contacted her parents and brother for dowry. In February 2010 J.D. Prasad the father-in-law of the complainant contacted the father of complainant and asked to send the complainant to Dhanbad. The complainant applied for leave to go to Dhanbad since the leave was not granted to her by the employer, she was compelled to resign from her service. Thereafter the complainant informed her in-laws that she had returned to Ranchi and requested them to take her back to the matrimonial home; but the accused persons never took the complainant to the matrimonial home and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry in addition as to what has been given at the time of marriage. The accused No.1 her husband persuaded her to come at Delhi so that the issue could be settled between them. He came Delhi on 31.08.2010 and insisted for the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he left the house of the complainant without taking her with him. Thereafter the brother of the complainant contacted to her husband Mukul Prasad the entire conversation was recorded which the complainant craves the leave of the Hon’ble Court to produce as and when required. The husband of the complainant also filed a Mediation Petition No. 46 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre seeking the amicable settlement of matrimonial discords at pre-litigation stage. He sent one le