Sunday, March 1, 2015

Vengeful 498A 406 against FIL quashed



Case filed 11 years after marriage. Omnibus complaints added against father in law to satisfy the personal grudge and vendetta. Hon Patna HC quashes complaint against father in law quoting Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State U.P.

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

 ******************************************************************

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22329 of 2012

***********************************************************

Shatrughan Singh @ Shatrudhan Singh

son of Late Kaleshwar Singh,

R/O Village- Karnal Chandi,

PS Charpokhari Distt- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

 

Versus

 

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Bindi Devi wife of Sanjay Singh

D/O Shri Haribansh Singh,

presently residing in village-Berath,

PS.Chauri, Distt-Bhojpur .... .... Opposite Party/s

 

***********************************************************

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunanda Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Puadhyaya, APP.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

***********************************************************

 

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 11-02-2015

 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. In spite of appearance of OP NO.2, none has represented her.

 

2. Petitioner, who happens to be father-in-law along with others including husband has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 342 of the IPC vide order dated 06.04.2011 passed by SDJM, Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No. 2100/2010, Trial No. 3004/2010 on a complaint filed by OP NO.2, Bindi Devi who happens to be wife of Sanjay Singh, son of petitioner whereunder, she had alleged that after marriage in the year 1999, she came to her Sasural where accused persons advanced demand of Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of dowry and to facilitate the same, she was also tortured.

 

3. It has further been alleged that in the year 2008, father of complainant had paid Rs. 1 Lakh to her husband, Sanjay Singh who had purchased one Commander Jeep in partnership with his friend. Subsequently thereof, they revived demand of dowry and having been denied at her side, on 18.09.2010, the accused persons brutally assaulted her on account of which there happens to be fracture in her left hand as well as also sustained injury over different parts of her body. The accused persons remained immune with her condition and lastly, on 27.09.2010, she was kicked out after retaining her ornaments, clothes etc. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

 

4. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that from the narration of the complain petition itself, it is apparent that it was the husband who had indulged in such kind of activity, otherwise, there was no occasion for the father of the complainant/OP NO-2 to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the husband of O.P. NO.2/complainant. It has further been submitted that from the complaint petition, it is also apparent that marriage took place in the year 1999 and the case has been filed after eleven years of date of marriage and during intervening period, as expected, the petitioner has gone old and now became victim of circumstances. It has further been submitted that in omnibus way the allegation has been attributed to the petitioner even during course of S.A. as well as statement of the witnesses, is indicative of the fact that being father of the husband of the complainant, he has been implicated in this case to satisfy the personal grudge and vendetta. So submitted that the order of cognizance should be set aside.

 

5. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that at the present stage, presence of prima facie case suggests validity of the order of cognizance.

 

6. After going through the order impugned as well as complaint petition along with other materials, it is apparent that no specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioner.

 

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State U.P. reported in 2013 AIR SC 181 has held that usually the family members are being implicated in a case under Section 498A IPC along with other allied Sections by way of retaliation and unless and until, there happens to be specific allegation, the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

8. Accordingly, the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the learned lower court to the extent of petitioner is quashed. Petition is allowed.

 

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

 

perwez

 

U  T

 

 

Tags :

#498a

#498a_11yrs_aftr_marriage

#498a_quashed

#Vengeful_498a

#Quash

 

 

PDF uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1DtEgNs

 

 

 



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  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