Thursday, August 15, 2013

Want a smart and well qualified wife? Very good! Case of How an UGC Researcher / Research fellow wife files 498A case, and scr3ws the life of MANY in husband's family !


Want a smart and well qualified wife? Very good! Case of How an UGC Researcher / Research  fellow wife files 498A case, and scr3ws the life of MANY in husband's family !
 
Also interesting to note how the Judge says the Husband's mother should NOT get any relief because ....because ...she is central to the whole thing ...this torture ..... 
 
 
Notes
******************
* husband an engineer
* wife an UGC Research Fellow !!
* wife's dad in senior governmental position !!
* marriage conducted with pomp and ceremony ...which later on becomes one the FIRST complaints !!
* many more allegations from the UGSC topper wife
* oh she was told she was a beggar's daughter
* oh cash was demanded
* oh she was beaten
* oh she was NOT even given a mobile phone
* oh this and oh that .........
* assault and torture EVEN at the honey moon !!
* finally police do an investigation (really ??) and say material evidence only against husband 
* however magistrate orders notice on all of family
* so husband's mother and brother run for quash
* the Honourable HC judge says the mother in law ...yes the evil husband's evil mother CANNOT be grated ANY quash !! why because according to the honourable judge the MIL is pivotal and central in all the torture !!
* so MIL is granted NO relief / NO quash
* case quashed against husband's brother alone !!
 
* however the High court says there is misuse .... but also says REAL cases of dowry torture are increasing !!!
 
* I can't understand why women (I mean mother women) want the son to get married ????
 
***********************************************************
 
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3894 of 2013
 
 
******************************************************
 
1. Sudha Verma, W/O Late Rajesh Kumar Dutt Verma, Resident Of Mohalla E-3, Sadhnapuri, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.
 
2. Nikhil Kumar Dutt Verma @ Mithilesh Kr. Verma, S/O Late Rajesh Kumar Dutt Verma Resident Of Mohalla E-3, Sadhnapuri, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna. **** **** Petitioner/s
 
Versus
 
1. The State of Bihar.
 
2. Smt. Rashmi Kiran, W/O Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma, D/O Sri Vinay Kumar Sinha, at present residing at A/89, A.G. Colony, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna.**** **** Opposite Party/s
 
****************************************************** 
 
Appearance :
 
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Mr. A. Jha, Advocates.
 
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Mr. Arjun Kumar, Advocates.
 
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar No.2, A.P.P. 
 
 
****************************************************** 
 
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY CAV ORDER
 
05.08.2013 
 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the State.
 
2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No.336 of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
 
3. One Rashmi Kiran, opposite party no.2, lodged a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.3282 © of 2007 against Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma and other family members including petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sudha Verma, mother-in-law and petitioner no.2, Nikhil Kumar Dutt Verma alias Mithilesh Kumar Verma, elder brother of the husband of the complainant. In the complaint petition allegation has been made, the complainant married with Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma (accused no.1) on 10.3.2007 as per Hindu rites and culture. The father of the complainant was Senior Audit Officer in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Bihar (Audit), Patna whereas the complainant is Master in Arts degree holder was selected for UGC Fellowship for her research work. At the time of negotiation of marriage the father of the complainant was given an impression that they will consider the problem of the father of complainant and accordingly ceremony of engagement was held on 2.2.2007 and thereafter they started presurrising for cash money and various articles costly jewelleries and consumer goods. All the accused persons exerted pressure of conducting marriage from any luxury hotel and finally the father of the complainant agreed for holding the marriage ceremony at Chanakya Hotel, Veer Chand Patel Marg, where the father of the complainant had to pay beyond his capacity. During the marriage father of the complainant gave costly articles, clothes for every member of in-laws of complainant. On second day of marriage in-laws of petitioner no.1 mother-in-law asked her to show her jewelleries and other costly gifts and clothes under the pretext of keeping in the safe custody with promise to return the same but they did not return all her valuable gifts which was her Ishtridhan. After two days of marriage all the family members including petitioners started torturing/teasing her for not bringing sufficient articles and made insinuation of being a daughter of family of beggar claiming the husband being an Engineer and offer was made by others to pay the cash and costly gifts including Honda City Car. In the complaint petition Nanad and Nandoshi were also implicated having set of teasing for not bringing sufficient dowry and they used to interfere into the internal matter of family of her husband. Allegation has been made, they not only abused or assaulted the complainant in presence of father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband who themselves have actively participated in the assault. It has been claimed that accused persons used to give direction for making demands from her father otherwise she would be assaulted and tortured regularly till she would die and in discussion they used to challenge her chastity. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that father-in-law, mother-in- law, in presence of husband used to exert pressure to bring cash, jewelleries, Honda City Car otherwise she would be killed and they would be in position to get the aforesaid money in case of remarriage. Allegation has been made, the complainant was not allowed to attend the research work in Patna University and threatened for discontinuation of her research work in case of non-payment of aforesaid dowry.
 
4. On the 6th day of marriage, the husband of the complainant left for Chennai and in his absence in-laws including brother-in-law (Bhaisur), Nanad and Nandoshi continued to torture, asked her to work as domestic maid in their house and coerce to perform chose by asking the servant not to do any work pressurizing the complainant to do all works of sweeping of floors and other daily chore. Though he used to work but in-laws refused to provide meal even for many days. She talked to her husband but he replied in a different tune and reiterated the demand as aforesaid including Honda City Car.
 
5. In the first week of April, 2007 they had gone for honeymoon where the complainant was assaulted and demand of dowry was made. There is allegation of consistent demand of dowry including humiliation on many occasions and also abused her parents for non-fulfillment of dowry. In the last week of April, 2007 she conceived a child but was warned for keeping it secret from her parents and persuaded for abortion by her husband and in-laws when she did not agree she was forced to sallow some medicine which resulted into abortion. The complainant went to Chennai along with her husband where the husband was posted as Garrison Engineer, Research and Development, Avadi, Chennai but the torture did not cease rather continued as father-in-law and mother-in- law also accompanied her to the place of posting. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that she used to be kept in confinement and her husband never took her to the parties, used to be regularly held in Officers Mess of Army rather father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the complainant used to assault her and locked her inside the room. Allegation has been made against Nanad and Nandoshi reached to Chennai in July, 2007, joined her mother-in-law and father- in-law but they used to continue to assault. It has further been alleged that as the complainant was UGC Research Fellow and she had an opportunity to go abroad she asked her husband to get their marriage registered but the same was strongly objected and they refused to register the marriage.
 
6. On 30th of July, 2007 the complainant along with the husband returned to Patna but was not allowed to talk to her parents and some one was keeping watch on the movement of her as the complainant had no mobile phone it was very difficult for her to make a contact with their family members. The father of the complainant smelt some foul play went to Sasural of the complainant who initially was not allowed to meet. Later on when the mother of the complainant insisted for talk in isolated room which was allowed but sister-in-law and brother-in-law were remained present during their conversation and only then the parents of the complainant could realize seriousness of the matter. The parents of the complainant tried to talk her telephonically but she was not ever allowed to talk in seclusion.
 
7. On 6th of August, 2007 the parents of the complainant and one Aunt went to Sasural of the complainant to meet her in the evening hour but they were not allowed to meet in exclusion of others but father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law remained present. At the time of return the complainant started weeping which was depicted by his in- laws and other family members as tears sentiments. The husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, Nanad and Nandoshi caught hold the complainant and badly abused, humiliated and assaulted her with fists and slaps, sticks. They had torn her clothes, abused with filthy language and refused to give her food. In the complainant petition allegation has been made that the husband and others used to assault on her face and back. It was matter of chance the parents gave a call on 8.8.2007 and at that time the complainant could manage to convey the agony and harassment met to her. Instantly the parents came to her Sasural where she came out and started crying, disclosed the continuous torture perpetrated on her and made allegation of agony started from 3rd day of her marriage and stated that she was apprehending eminent danger to her life. The complainant was brought to A.G. Colony i.e. parents house where the complainant stated the agony in full detail and the incident that took place during her stay at Patna in her in-laws house or Chennai where she was treated like a domestic maid was not allowed to go to along with her husband to the parties which used to be held in the army mess. It has been alleged that efforts were made to settle and cool down the dispute but it did not give any fruitful result and ultimately the present case has been filed.
 
8. The Court after registration of the case in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred the case to the police for investigation. The case was registered as Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No.336 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
 
 
9. The police, after investigation found the allegation to be true against Ratnesh Kumar Dutt Verma, husband of the complainant and did not find any material against other four persons including the petitioners, submitted final form in their favour.
  
10. The Court on the basis of the material specifically mentioned in paragraph nos. 6, 8 and 117 issued notices including the petitioners and accordingly cognizance was taken under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused persons.
  
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police during investigation did not find material against these petitioners and the paragraphs that have been mentioned in the impugned order do not show implication of the petitioners in criminal case, are not sufficient for taking cognizance against these two petitioners. He has further submitted that the statement made in the complaint petition where allegations have been dealt with elaborately, no specific allegation has been made either against petitioner no.1 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no.2 (brother-in-law) of the complainant. Only vague and omnibus allegation has been made against them. He has further submitted that the police during investigation found the material against the husband in particular and did not find any material against other accused persons and as such the court below should not have taken cognizance, in vague and unsubstantiated material, the order of cognizance is an abuse of the process of the Court so much so it becomes the affairs of the day, to rope all family members including distant relative having little connection with a view to harsh and exert undue pressure and disadvantages against the family members of the husband. He has further submitted that there is no specific allegation against these petitioners, the continuation of present proceeding is unnecessary harassment to these petitioners and as such the order of cognizance be quashed against them. In support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments:
 
(1) Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anopther, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 
 
(2) Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 
 
(3) Rina Sinha @ Rina Verma Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2010) 4 PLJR 582
 
(4) Jai Shankar Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 26,
 
(5) Arbind Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 165,
 
(6) Preety Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and has also relied on an unreported order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24423 of 2004 dated 13.1.2011 (in the case of Dinesh Kumar Lal Vs. The State of Bihar and others).
 
 
12. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that it is the petitioners who were/are real player of drama behind screen and responsible for the trauma faced by the complainant during sustenance and continuance at in-laws house of the complainant. He has further submitted that in the complaint petition specific allegations have been made against petitioner no.1 who is mother-in-law and also stated that allegations have also been made against petitioner in different paragraphs of the complaint petition, namely, 3,5,7, 14, 15, 17 and 18. It has further been submitted that they are very influential persons and they have some how or others got the matter referred to C.I.D., on objection from the side of complainant, later on the matter was brought to regular police for investigation. He has further submitted that judgment reported in the case of Preety Gupta (supra) is not applicable in the present case as this case was decided in the peculiar facts and circumstances and as such this case has no bearing in the present case. The point that all family members have been made an accused is an incorrect facts one elder brother who has been residing at Delhi has not been made accused as he has/had nothing to do with present episode. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case. At the stage of taking cognizance, the court below rightly confined his consideration of prima facie case, the court below will consider whole material at the stage of framing of charge or trial. It will not be appropriate to quash the proceeding at the thresh-hold as it is the petitioners who are also be beneficiary from the money if it would have been given by parents of complainant. At the stage of trial every aspect of the matter would be seen and it will not be desirable to exercise the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has relied on the judgment in the case of Gambhirsinh R. Dekare V. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and another, reported in A.I.R. 2013 SC 1590 (paragraph 12) and Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 (paragraph 12).
 
13. The issue of quashing of order of cognizance and criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been considered in long line of cases. The Court can quash the proceeding to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. The Court has consider the para-meter of Section 482 of the Code and it is held that when on admitted facts mention in the First Information Report or in the complaint petition does not disclose any offence, if the complaint or the First Information Report has been lodged due to personal vengeance and completely show a malicious prosecution the Court will have a liberty to quash the proceeding and has held if on reading of the complaint petition or the First Information Report essentially shows a dispute of civil nature in that circumstances also the Court will have jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. The Court has also held that when the facts mentioned in the First Information Report or in the complaint petition facts disclosed are inherently improbable which no reasonable person can accept the uncontroverted statement in that circumstances also the Court will have a liberty to quash the proceeding. The Court has also placed a caution that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code, the Court should exercise that power sparingly and with circumspection, in rare of rare cases, that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Gambhirsinh R. Dekare V. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and another, reported in A.I.R. 2013 SC 1590 in paragraph 12 has held, while exercising of power under Section 482 of the Code, it is not permissible to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation and one has to proceed on a footing that the allegations stated therein are correct and as such, while exercising this power, Court will not add or deduct any fact mentioned in the First Information Report or in the complaint petition. The Court has to examine uncontroverted facts mentioned in the First Information Report or in the complaint petition but this Court cannot close its eyes what is prevailing in our society these days the matrimonial dispute has taken gigantic size and Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically dealing with matrimonial disputed has shown concern about unnecessary implication of relative of bridegroom vis-à-vis imputation alleged in the complaint petition, in absence of specific allegation, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction with caution and with circumspection.
 
14. In the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hared-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. The Court has considered the cases of R.P. Kapur V. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 866, Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 and State of Haryana V. Bhajan lal, reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335. The Court has approved the judgment of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 122 and quoted in affirmance in paragraph 8 of the judgment which is as follows: 
 
>"8****** It would be an abuse of process of court to
>allow any action which would result in injustice and
>prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the
>powers, court would be justified to quash any
>proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of
>it amount to abuse of the process of court or quashing
>of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
>justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
>complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
>When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
>permissible to look into the materials to assess what
>the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
>made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
 
15. The Court has also held that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. The Court has said that power should exercise for advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the court would be justified in prevention injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. The Court has taken into consideration what is happening in the society in filing the matrimonial criminal cases where the Court has held that complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. The Court has held that large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine case of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. It is apt to quote paragraph 33 to 37 of the aforesaid judgment: 
 
>"33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
>social responsibility and obligation to ensure that
>the social fibre of family life is not ruined or
>demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated version
>of small incidents should not be reflected in the
>criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are
>filed either on their advice or with their
>concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
>to a noble profession must maintain its noble
>traditions and should treat every complaint under
>Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
>serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
>an amicable resolution of that human problem. They
>must discharge their duties to the best of their
>abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and
>tranquility of the society remains intact. The members
>of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint
>should not lead to multiple cases.
>
>34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
>complaint the implications and consequences are not
>properly visualized by the complainant that such
>complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
>and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
>relations.
>
>35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
>truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
>To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority
>of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the
>husband and all his immediate relations is also not
>uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the
>criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
>truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
>cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
>take pragmatic realities into consideration while
>dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
>harassment of husband's close relations who had been
>living in different cities and never visited or rarely
>visited the place where the complainant resided would
>have an entirely different complexion. The allegations
>of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with
>great case and circumspection.
>
>36. Experience revels that long and protected
>criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and
>bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It
>is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases
>filed by the complainant if the husband or the
>husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a
>few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable
>settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
>extremely long and painful.
>
>37. Before parting with this case, we would like to
>observe that a serious relook of the entire provision
>is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter
>of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
>incident are reflected in a large number of
>complaint's. The tendency of over implication is also
>reflected in a very large number of cases. The
>criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
>concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may
>also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of
>suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of
>these complaints have not only flooded the courts but
>also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
>peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
>high time that the legislature must take into
>consideration the pragmatic realities and make
>suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
>for the legislature to take into consideration the
>informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
>consideration and make necessary changes in the
>relevant provisions of law."
 
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered in the case of Neelu Chopra (supra) in similar situation the Court has held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mentioning of the sections and the language of those sections will not be sufficient. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed and role played by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused person in commission of that offence.The Court has held that in case of vague and uncontroverted facts without specification of the role committed by each person, the Court would quash the proceeding.
 
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered and delineated the scope of interference while exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, in the matrimonial cases, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment has endorsed view and principles laid in the case Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 507 where the court has set forth, the bald allegations made against sister-in- law by the complainant suggested the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. The Court has held that as there was no material in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet creating legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against appellate of that case. The Court in that case considering the attending facts and circumstances arrived to the conclusion was a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her matrimonial surrounding. It will be appropriate to quote paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment:
 
>"25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of
>caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to
>infer that even if there are allegations of overt act
>indicating the complicity of the members of the family
>named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be
>unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by
>highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not
>disclose specific allegation against the accused more
>so against the co-accused specially in a matter
>arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be
>clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to
>mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to
>undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses
>specific allegations which would persuade the court to
>take cognizance of the offence alleged against the
>relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not
>found to have indulged in physical and mental torture
>of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled
>principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention,
>that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an
>offence, the court would be justified in quashing the
>proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.
>Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a
>cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially
>in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in
>fact discloses commission of an offence by the
>relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima
>facie discloses a case of over implication by
>involving the entire family of the accused at the
>instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her
>scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish
>of domestic bickering while settling down in her new
>matrimonial surrounding."
 
18. This Court in the case of Arbind Kumar Singh (supra) has held that when the allegations made in the complaint petition are general in nature and did not disclose specific date and events for doing criminal act in that circumstances it will be appropriate to quash the proceeding. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in connection with matrimonial dispute that there is tendency of over implication roping of all family members in the matrimonial dispute even to the distant relatives without making specific allegation against them in that circumstances if the Court feels that it was a case of exaggerated version of incident and tendency of over implication is noticed without any specific allegation and role played by each person rather vague allegation has been made against the person the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court and for the ends of justice, in exercise of inherent power, would quash the criminal proceeding. The court would consider the facts of each case and to pass order as per the norms set above.
 
19. In the above consideration let us examine the present case whether the present case qualifies the test that has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
 
20. For coming to the right conclusion it will be proper and desirable to examine the narration of facts mentioned in the complaint petition to find out about the nature of allegation and its specification made against petitioner nos. 1 and 2. While considering the case of petitioner no.1, mother- in-law, has to be kept in mind, the mother has special status in the family that too, especially offences relating matrimonial discord. The family moves around the mother specifically in the matter, either of daughter or the son. In the present complaint case allegations against mother-in-law has been specifically mentioned in paragraph nos. 5, 7, 10 , 15 and 17 of the complaint petition. In the aforesaid paragraphs, allegation of assault and torture by mother-in-law has been mentioned and looking to the nature of precise allegation as well as her status and position in the family including the role played by her, mother-in-law is not entitled to the relief from this Court. Accordingly the petition against petitioner no.1 is rejected.
 
21. So far petitioner no.2, namely, who is brother- in-law so long the parents alive, they control the family, the brother-in-law has very little role to play in the family that too in the matter of matrimonial dispute of brother. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is the duty of the Court to see the role which has been alleged to have been played by the brother-in-law, is required to be considered to find out as to whether allegations are vague or having specification. In the complaint petition as has been pointed out by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that paragraph nos. 3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 deals with petitioner no.2 on examination of narration of facts, it is amply clear that no specific allegation ahs been made against him rather the vague statement has been made without any details role played by him in perpetrating torture on complainant. As has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it become affair of the day of over implication roping each and every member of the family and utilized the criminal proceeding as a weapon not for the redressal of his grievance but to terrorize with vengeance to the family members of the husband. In this case also it is apparent that the complainant has roped large number of family members including father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in- law, sister-in-law, husband's of sister-in-law itself shows the intention of the complainant the over implication with exaggerated version making some and vague allegation against each of the family members without giving specific detail. This Court feels that the continuation of the proceeding against petitioner no.2 will not serve its purpose rather it would encourage over implication embraced and to use the criminal proceeding as a tools of harassment to the whole family members draw criticism.
 
22. In this view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 20.10.2012 taken against petitioner no.2 is quashed. Accordingly this application is allowed in connection with petitioner no.2 and dismissed with respect to petitioner no.1. Accordingly this application is partly allowed. 
 
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
 
Vinay/- 
 
 
 
 
***************************
 
FOLLOW 
@ATMwithDick on twitter or 
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
 
 
regards
 
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist