IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3235 of 2022

------
1. Vibhor Sharan Gupta @ Vibhor Sharan
2. Madhu Gupta .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ragini Gupta .... .... .... Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate

Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.04 Dated : 06.02.2023
Instant petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2022 registered
under Sections 498A, 325, 377, 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Complaint Case
No.257 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-
XXI, Ranchi. The petitioner No.1 is husband (A 1) and petitioner No.2 is
mother law (A 2).
2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that general
and omnibus allegation has been levelled against both these petitioners and
there is no allegation against petitioner No.2 with respect to offence under
Sections 325 and 377 of the I.P.C under which cognizance has been taken
against her. It is further submitted that infirmity in the order will be apparent
from the fact that more than one month complainant stayed in her matrimonial
home with petitioner No.2 and only on bad assertion made in para 5 of the
complaint petition, she has been roped in this case, who is Government
teacher in a school. Petitioner No.1 is working in Transport Department,
Government of Jharkhand. Further, on solemn affirmation in para 10, the
complainant stated that she had not sustained any injury which required
treatment, therefore, no medical paper has been enclosed.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No.2
that there are materials against petitioner No.2 as well in the complaint
petition as well as in the statement and other enquiry witnesses.
4. I find much force in the argument on behalf of petitioner regarding
false implication of petitioner No.2 in the case.
 The learned Court below appears to have ordered the issuance of such
process against both the accused persons without applying judicial mind. As
far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, on vague and general allegation, she has
been proceeded against. It has been held in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of
Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana,
(2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605], it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)
“6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should
not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out.”
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A I.P.C. and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing
the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749

28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot
be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine
the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed
in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself
put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the
truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned order is set
aside and the entire criminal proceeding is quashed with respect to petitioner
No.2-Madhu Gupta.
Criminal miscellaneous petition is partly allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Anit