The Allahabad High Court while quashing the summoning order against sister-in-law passed by the Civil Judge (Jr Division), Kaushambi said that forcing the sister-in-law mechanically to face trial would not be befitting in the eyes of law and would amount to a clear abuse of law.
A Single Bench of Justice Justice Dinesh Pathak passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Virendra Kumar Kushwaha and 3 Others.
The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the summoning order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr Division), Kaushambi in Complaint Case under Sections- 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in brevity D.P Act) Police Station- Karari, District- Kaushambi.
The facts of the case are that the respondent no 2 (wife of the applicant no1) has moved a complaint dated 24.3.2021 against her husband, motherin-law, father-in-law and two sisters-in-law levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry with an averment that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 9.3.2019 with applicant no1 in accordance with the hindu rites and rituals; that as per their capacity, family members of the complainant have given dowry and sent her with her-in-laws; that when she reached at matrimonial home she has been harassed for demand of four wheeler; that when she reached her maternal home, she narrated her ordeals qua the demand of four wheeler and Rs 1 lakh cash, however, her family members have sent her back to the in-laws house by giving assurance that problem will be shorted out in some days; that family members of the complainant came at the residence of her in-laws and shown their inability to fulfill the demand of four wheeler and Rs 1 lakh; that she has been beaten up many times and sent to her maternal house; that she has been subjected to torture and cruel behavior of her in-laws, however, in the meantime, she gave birth to a boy child on 28.9.2020; that for demand of dowry, she has been kicked out on 16.01.2021 by her in-laws from the house; that husband of the complainant has stated that the child is not born from his loin, therefore, he will not keep the complainant with him and he will solemnized second marriage; that the complainant has already moved a representation/application to the Police Station concerned and the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi, however, till date no action has been taken, therefore, accused/ respondents may be summoned and punished.
The Magistrate, after going through the contents of the complaint and the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C has issued processed against the applicants viz husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and one sister-in-law, exculpating Rubi Kushwaha (another sister-in-law), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P Act vide its order impugned dated 14.9.2021.
Assailing the summoning order under challenge, counsel for the applicants (accused) has submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been made against the applicants without any incriminating material on record and all the family members of the husband has illegally been roped in the criminal proceedings based on the general allegations and no specific instance has been given by the complainant attributing the accused concerned for making out a case of cognizable offence.
The Court observed that,
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifested that there is an admitted relationship between the applicant no1 and respondent no 2 (complainant) being husband and wife. Showing her plights suffered after the marriage at the in-laws house, respondent no 2 has filed a complaint levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry against all the family members of her husband. Perusal of the complaint reveals that general allegations have been made against the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and two sisters-in-law by referring to their names in a very casual manner. They have been blamed for harassing the complainant for demanding four wheeler and Rs 1 lakh cash in the nature of dowry.
In the complaint both sisters-in-law, namely Priya Kushawaha and Rubi Kushwaha have been inculpated as accused nos 4 and 5. However, while issuing the petition, Rubi Kushwaha has been exculpated on the ground that she is married and her name has not been taken by the complainant in her statement made under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
The court below has observed that complainant has taken the names of her husband, mother-inlaw, father-in-law and one of the sister-in-law, namely Priya Kushwaha, except the name of another sister-in-law namely Rubi Kushwaha, with an allegation that they all harassed her for demand of dowry.
Perusal of the complaint evince the omnibus allegations made against all the applicants herein by referring their names in a casual manner with an allegation of demanding four wheeler and Rs.1 lakh cash in the nature of dowry. However, in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., she has simply stated that she has been harassed for demanding dowry. No specific allegation has been made for demand of four wheeler and case amounting Rs.1 lakh. She has made specific allegations against her husband that he has threatened the complainant to solemnize second marriage. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the case of the complainant wherein complainant has allegedly been harassed for demand of four wheeler and cash amounting Rs. 1 lakh. Both the witnesses have made general allegations against all family members of the husband (applicants herein) including Rubi Kushwaha (another sister-in-law) taking their names casually without citing any particular instance attributing to their overt act in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. Rubi Kushwaha has been exempted in the summoning order on the ground that her name has not specifically been taken by the complainant in her statement under Section 200 CrPC.
Complaint filed by respondent no 2 and the statements made under Section 200 Cr.P.C and 202 Cr.P.C, prima facie, reveals that name of the applicant no 4 has casually been referred along with other co-accused in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering sans citing any specific instance attributing to her.
“Complaint, prima facie, discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the husband at the instance of the complainant. Forcing the applicant no 4 (sister-in-law) mechanically to face trial would not be befitting in the eyes of law and would amount a clear abuse of legal and judicial process inasmuch in the complaint as it stands, in my opinion, no cognizable offence is made out against applicant no 4 under Sections- 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P Act. She has been named casually based on omnibus allegations without showing her active involvement in the matter to make out a case of cognizable offence under the sections, in which process has been issued by the court competent against her.
In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered opinion, that justifiable ground is made to allow the instant application in part in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice, so far as it relates to the applicant no 4 (sister-in-law)”, the Court observed while allowing the application.
“The summoning order dated 14.9.2021 is hereby quashed, in part, so far as it relates to the applicant no 4 Priya Kushwaha (sister-in-law).
So far as remaining applicants are concerned, they will face trial in pursuance of the order impugned dated 14.9.2021″, the Court ordered.