AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 351 wordsGautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.31 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.1381 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner No.1- is father-in-law and petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2015 and it is alleged that just after the marriage, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law started informant to cruelty in reference to unlawful dowry demand of car and jewellery. On the very first occasion, she came to her matrimonial home, she was scolded by her husband in reference to unlawful demand.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no allegation in the entire F.I.R. against both these petitioners and general allegation has been levelled against entire family. Reliance has been placed on
Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599
Preeti Gupta & Another Versus State of Jharkhand & Another; (2010) 7 SCC 667.
Sanjay Kumar Poddar Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another; Cr.M.P. No.3131 of 2019
Geeta Mehrotra & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 741
It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of informant that Rs.2,50,000/- had been taken in the account of petitioner No.1 at the time of marriage. The demand of acceptance of dowry to that extent has been established. It is submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on the basis of which cognizance has been taken.
There is a specific allegation against petitioner no.1 that Rupees 2.5 lakh was received in his account, which shows unlawful demand just preceding the marriage. With respect to petitioner.2 no specific assertions have been made and on general in omnibus allegation he cannot be put on trial for offences involving matrimonial cases.
Order taking cognizance against petitioner no.2 his quashed.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is rejected with respect to petitioner No.1. So far petitioner No.2 is concerned, the same is allowed.