General and omnibus allegations under Section 498-A IPC do not warrant prosecution, as established by Supreme Court precedent.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) :

Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 whereby and where under cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code has been taken inter alia against the petitioner who is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 which is pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. at Jamtara.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons were demanding Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and used to treat her with cruelty in connection with demand of the said dowry. On 20.12.2020, the in-laws of the complainant assaulted her. She sustained injuries on her belly and she was treated at Dhanbad. The in-laws of the complainant drove her out from her matrimonial house after assaulting her and retained her jewelry and clothes. There was a Panchayati on 20.06.2021 in which the in-laws’ of the complainant told that unless the complainant pays Rs.1,00,000/-, she would not come to her matrimonial house and the complainant is in her father’s house. The statement on solemn affirmation of the victim was recorded on 26.08.2021. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student of R.S. More College, Govindpur in the District of Dhanbad and he was living separately for his studies for attending his regular course of B.A. for the session 2018-2021. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of having specifically committed any overt act to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations against him are general and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2012 dated 06.07.2023 and Cr.M.P. No.2647 of 2018 dated 20.07.2022 and submits that as general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner, hence, this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 which is pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. at Jamtara, be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 which is pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. at Jamtara and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of treating the complainant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Hence, at this nascent stage, the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with P.C.R. Case No.201 of 2021 which is pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. at Jamtara ought not to be quashed. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Ka