General allegations against family members in matrimonial disputes require concrete evidence; vague accusations cannot sustain prosecution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 202 of 2018 (G.R. No. 8944/2018) registered for the offences under Sections 4 98(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961, whereby the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant/opposite party No. 2 has alleged that his daughter was suffering from some disability in her left leg and he had given an advertisement in order to find a suitable groom stating the aforesaid fact and after seeing the same, the petitioner No. 2, namely, Ram Suresh Singh, contacted the informant/opposite party No. 2 for marriage of his son. It is further alleged that a car, in the name of the informant’s (O.P. No. 2) daughter, along with other items were given as gifts in the marriage and despite such gifts being given, the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2 was being regularly taunted for certain things and also with regard to her disability. It has lastly been alleged that the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2 was ill- treated and was also threatened that divorce shall be given and the petitioners were also demanding Rs. 50,00,000/- from the informant/opposite party No. 2.

4. Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the allegations against all the petitioners are concocted and no such demand of dowry or torture was ever committed by the petitioners. It has been submitted that, in fact, the petitioners were cheated by the informant/opposite party No. 2 as the disability of his daughter was never disclosed in the advertisement nor they were told about her physical disability. It has further been submitted that the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2, who left the house of the petitioners in the year 2016, had gone to her parents’ house without giving any reasonable cause for the same. It has next been submitted that after waiting for return of informant’s daughter for almost two years, the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shashikant Singh, has preferred a matrimonial case, bearing Matrimonial Case No. 1206 of 2018, seeking dissolution of marriage and it was only upon filing of such matrimonial case that the informant/opposite party No. 2 has lodged the present F.I.R. on 19.12.2018 against the petitioners on false and fabricated grounds.

5. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that during the course of trial, the petitioners filed an application for discharge on various grounds, especially the fact that there is no ingredients of the offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the I.P.C. against them. It has also been pleaded that no independent witnesses have been examined during the course of investigation in support of the case of the prosecution and, therefore, proceeding ahead on such vague and baseless statements and thus the framing of charge would not be proper. It has further been submitted that without going into the evidence, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners by the impugned order dated

01.04.2024.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shashikant Singh, is the husband of the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2, whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ram Suresh Singh and Naina S