IMPORTANT POINT
General allegations without specific roles do not justify criminal proceedings under Section 498A, preventing abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. On 08.05.2024, nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was adjourned and it was also observed that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, the matter shall be decided on merits in absence of opposite party no.2. Today on repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in view of that, this matter is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2009 passed in C.P. Case No.377 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is legally married wife of Roopesh Kumar Singh and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rights and rituals on 17.02.2005. At the time of marriage, the complainant's father has given dowry of Rupees Nine Lakhs along with ornaments and utensils. After the marriage, the complainant was brought to her in-laws house at C.D. Singh Colony, Dhanbad, where her father-in-law was posted as B.C.C.L Officer and at that time, the parties started their conjugal life. After passing of few months of the marriage, the family members of the petitioners started making pressure upon the complainant to bring more dowry of Rupees Two Lakhs from her father and when the same was objected by the complainant, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and she was not allowed proper food, clothing and necessary medicine. The complainant informed the matter to her father on mobile, then the family members of the complainant came to in-laws house of complainant and saw pitiable condition of the complainant. The father of the complainant requested all the accused persons not to torture her but in return the accused persons started using filthy language upon the complainant and directed that if the dowry demand will not be full-filled, they will not allow her in the house any more. A Panchayati was convened, but the accused persons did not appear before Panchayati. The complainant further alleged that her husband is drunkard and all in-law persons instigating the husband to give mental and physical torture to her. It was also alleged that on 29.01.2007 while the complainant was at her matrimonial house, her mother- in-law, accused no. 3, all of a sudden begun to abuse her by pulling her hair. The complainant again informed her father and requested her to take her to her "Naihar" and accordingly she was taken back by her father to her father's house, but again after some days accused no. 1 i.e. husband came to the house of the complainant's father and requested for "Vidai" with assurance that no further torture will be made to her. After some days, on 22.02.2007 accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 again assaulted brutally and attempted to murder her. She was taken back to her father's house on 09.04.2007. The complainant's father sent a legal notice to resolve the dispute within 15 days with respect to the dispute regarding her torture by the accused persons, but in spite of receiving the legal notice, no reply was sent and the accused no. 1 again reached to her parents' house for "Vidai". On 30.10.2007, again demand of dowry was made for Rupees Five Lakhs and torture was made to her. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the divorce case was filed by her husband at Chhapra, but on being asked the husband, he ignored this. On 22.11.2008 the complainant's father arranged a Panchayati of local persons, in which also the accused persons did not appear and lastly again on 15.09.2009, the husband came for "Vidai" purpose and he was directed to execute a bond in favour of the complai