PATNA, India, June 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 17:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 01.10.2022 passed in G.R. No. 2956 of 2019 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea by which prayer of discharge of petitioners was rejected in connection with Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, where chargesheet submitted under Sections 341, 323, 498 A & 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.08.2019, Swati Kumari daughter of Umesh Kumar Singh, filed a written complaint stating that she was married to Vishal Kumar (son of Binod Kumar) two years ago, and have a child together. Both husband and wife are doctors. Initially, the relation between parties was co-ordial, but later on her inlaws including her husband Vishal Kumar, mother-in-law Veena Devi, father-in-law Binod Kumar and sister-in-law Binita Kumari demanded land and Rs. 10 lakh. Upon her refusal, they allegedly began harassing her, denying her food and water, preventing her from attending her clinic and started regularly assaulting her. She also reported that her inlaws threatened to falsely implicate her father in serious criminal cases.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that both petitioners are in-laws facing general and omnibus allegation qua demand of dowry. It is submitted that even allegation of physical assault is appearing very much general and omnibus against these petitioners and they appear primarily alleged only being parents of husband of O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out by Mr. Sinha that date of occurrence also not appears specified from the face of FIR. It is submitted that Rs. 7 lakhs advanced to petitioner no. 1 by the father of O.P. No. 2 admittedly for the business purpose as loan, which was duly returned by petitioners prior to this marriage and, therefore, allegation for demand of dowry appears apparently false on its face. It is submitted that amount in issue was returned through bank transaction, leaving no doubt.

5. It is also submitted by Mr. Sinha that injury report made available through supplementary affidavit suggest only bodily pain etc., contrary to the allegations as raised by O.P. No. 2 as she was brutally beaten by petitioner's son and also by petitioners.

6. While concluding his argument, it is pointed out that from the allegation as set out through FIR, no prima- facie cognizable offence appears to be made out against petitioners, where implication only appears being parents of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and, therefore, the order rejecting discharge petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Trial Court is fit to be quashed and set aside as there is no ground to call petitioners for joining the criminal trial. In support of the submissions learned counsel relied upon the legal reports of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 & Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

7. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submitted that FIR in issue categorically disclosing that the petitioners raised demand of dowry for cash of Rs. 10 lakhs and they were involved in physical assault, however she fairly conceded that date of occurrence is not specified in the FIR.

8. It would also be apposite to reproduce the paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (supra) which reads as under:

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyNDIwOSMyMDIzIzEjTg==-gCCYnvTliGM=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.