In Karandeep Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Praveen Kumar delivered a 5-page long judgement dated October 26, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "8. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the fact of general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, as also in view of the judgments as discussed above, the order taking cognizance dated 13.11.2017, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria as against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are hereby quashed."
The petitioners had filed the application for quashing of the order dated November 13, 2017, passed by the S.D.J.M., Khagaria, in Complaint Case No. 519(C) of 2017, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that she was married to petitioner No. 1 (Karandeep Kumar) on January 27, 2012, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, jewellery worth Rs. 1,50,000/-, a motorcycle worth Rs. 65,000/- and other articles as dowry. After ten days of marriage she came back to her parental house. It was also alleged that in the year 2013, she returned to her matrimonial home and, after petitioner No. 1 was selected in CISF on 29.09.2014, all the accused persons started demanding an additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and subjected her to cruelty. It was further been alleged that the accused persons threatened to solemnize another marriage of petitioner No. 1, if the demand for dowry was not fulfilled. It was alleged that on April 20, 2017, the accused persons ousted the complainant from her matrimonial home, whereupon she started residing at her parental home.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case, as they were relatives of the husband of the complainant, who are consisting of the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law as well as the married sister of the husband of the complainant.
The counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Priti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 as well as in Geeta Malhotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. as reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 and submitted that general and omnibus allegations, without attributing any specific overt act to the accused persons, who happen to be relatives of the husband of the complainant, is an abuse of the process of the Court. There is a tendency on the part of the complainant to implicate all the family members of her husband in order to put pressure in cases of matrimonial discord.
The counsel of the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal as reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 andsubmitted that the case of the petitioners falls under various categories as discussed in paragraph 102 of the said judgment. It was further submitted that Section 494 would not be applicable against the petitioners (except petitioner No.1), and with respect to the offences under Section 498A and 406.
No comments:
Post a Comment