Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.
2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.11.2022 in Complaint Case No. 189/2022 pending the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein she is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and as per the demand of the petitioner, her parents spent a sum of Rs. 2,21,000/-. It is further alleged that the parents of the respondent no. 2 gave utensils and other valuables to the accused persons. It is also stated that the marriage was solemnized on 27.06.2020 after which she went to her matrimonial house where she was treated properly for a period of one month. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner started to assault the respondent No. 2 at the matrimonial house as well as at her parental house in Month of August 2020 and demanded cash amount. It is also stated that the accused Lakhi Devi @ Lalita Devi always used vulgar language to the respondent no. 2 and did not provide her proper food. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 demanded two wheelers and a golden ring from the respondent no.2. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 came to know that the son of the petitioner was previously married with another lady and solemnized marriage with her after the death of the 1st wife. It is also alleged that Jhari Thakur used to assault the respondent no. 2 on the instigation of the petitioner and demanded a two-wheeler. It is alleged that the other accused persons also inflicted torture upon her and asked her to fulfil the demand of the Jhari Thakur. It is also alleged that several times panchayati and mediation was held which bore no results and the accused persons committed atrocities upon her. It is alleged that the respondent no. 2 is residing at her parental house and Jhari Thakur denied accepting her until his demand of Golden Earring and Motorcycle are not fulfilled. It is stated that the all the accused persons have kicked out the respondent no. 2 out of the matrimonial house after snatching her entire streedhan.
4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband and petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2. He submits that the case is arising out of a matrimonial dispute and there is general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons. He further submits that in the complaint case six persons were made accused, however, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against these two petitioners only. He draws the attention of the court to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner No.2. He submits that so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned to allow the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law.
5. Learned counsel for the state submits that learned court looking into the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the husband and mother-in-law respectively and there are direct allegations against them and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance against them and at this stage this court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Looking into the contents of the complaint petition, it transpires that six persons were made accused, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance only against petitioner No.1, who happened to be husband and petitioner No.2, who happened to be mother-in-law of respondent No.2. In the solemn affirmation also, there are general and omnibus allegations of demand and assault. The specific role played by the petitioner No.2 is not disclosed in the solemn affirmation. For making out a case under Section 498 of the IPC. the explanation (a) & (b) is required to be fulfilled which is lacking in the case in hand.
8. How all the family members and distinct relatives are being made accused under Section 498A of IPC was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Guddu in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another versus State of U.P. and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. In the said case it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court where the family members of the husband are implicated on the general and omnibus allegation, the High Court is required to be interfered to avoid the abuse of process of law.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case, looking into the complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation, the Court finds that there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner No.2, who happened to be mother-in-law aged about 73 years, there is no direct allegation so far as the mother-in-law is concerned.
10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.11.2022, so far as petitioner No.2 namely Lakhi Devi @ Budhani Devi @ Lalita Devi is concerned, in Complaint Case No. 189/2022 pending the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad is hereby quashed.
11. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
12. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the entire criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance, so far as petitioner No.1 namely Jhari Thakur is concerned, and the learned Court will proceed in accordance with law.
