Patna High Court
Valmiki Prasad Singh, Shanti Kumari ... vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. on 26 September, 2007
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
JUDGMENT Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 2027C/05 by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder, having taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 504/36 of the Indian Penal Code (In short "the Code"), he has issued process against petitioner No. 1, father-in-law, and petitioner No. 2 mother-in-law and also petitioner No. 3, brother-in-law (Bhaisur).
3. This is a case of typical nature where the complainant opposite party No. 2, the wife, has alleged that even when she was being well maintained by her husband Nishant, it is the petitioners and other family members of her husband who were ill-treating her. As a matter of fact, the allegations having been made in the petition of complaint with regard to demand of dowry and/or keeping the belongings of the opposite party No. 2 complainant, have not been substantiated in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court below having ultimately disbelieved the offence under Sections 354, 379, and 498A of the Code, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has ultimately chosen to take cognizance only under Sections 323 and 504/34 of the Code.
4. The sole question which comes for consideration before me is whether even the offences under Sections 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioners and whether on the materials on record the criminal prosecution can be allowed to continue against them.
5. The complainant, in her solemn affirmation, has admitted that she is being well maintained by her husband and that she is staying separately from her in-laws, i.e. the petitioners. She further says that there was no demand of dowry from her husband and there is also no dispute with regard to any landed property between her and the petitioners. The Court below had also put a question to her in course of her examination on solemn affirmation as to what was the dispute between the parties and the complainant opposite party had answered that her husband was claiming his share in the family property and the same was not being given to him.
6. As I have stated above, it is a peculiar case where the son has come out in support of the allegation against his parents, father and mother and he has also been examined as witness in Court in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He says in his statement in reply to a query of the Court that there is absolutely no dispute in the matter of matrimonial life between him and his wife and that he was treating his wife well. What has really been stated by him in his answer to the Court's question would show that there is no difference between him and his wife and in fact he had never claimed his share in the family property.
7. Thus, on the basis of the averments made in the petition of complaint as also the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the witness, Nishant, the husband of the complainant opposite party and others, it is clear that there is only some dispute with regard to family property and the wife complainant opposite party already living separately is wanting the share of her husband to be given by the petitioners and that having not materialized, she has brought this complaint case with all sorts of allegations against the petitioners which has already been disbelieved by the court below while rejecting the allegation of demand of dowry and/or torture etc.
8. Thus on an overall review of the nature of allegations and the materials on record referred to above, I am satisfied that the allegation made in the petition of complaint against the petitioners are inherently improbable. In fact this is at best a case of civil dispute and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.9.2006, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusrai, and the resultant entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2027C/05 are hereby quashed.