Vagish Kumar and others vs State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Pathak, J.—This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking quashing of an order of cognizance dated 22.03.1997 passed by Shri Ved Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 541 of 1996. The relevant facts for this miscellaneous case, as per the complaint petition of Raj Kishore Sharma, are to the effect that the complainant had married his daughter Sandhya Kumari on 21st May, 1986 to Vagish Kumar. After marriage, the complainant''s daughter went to her Sasural and at the time of marriage, several articles including ornaments, furniture, refrigerator etc. worth rupees 2,54,000/- were given to the husband''s family. The complainant''s husband''s family became annoyed with the inadequate supply of articles and they started cursing the complainant''s daughter for the aforesaid lapse on the part of her father. It was also alleged by the husband''s family that Rs. 2,00,000/-, as promised, were not paid. The complainant''s daughter Sandhaya Kumar came back from her Sasural and then again on 28.05.1986, she was sent to her Sasural on second marriage (Gauna). She lived there for two months in the house of the husband''s family and discharged all her matrimonial home''s duties. However, the son- in-law of the complainant was on a private job which was about to terminate and so he demanded rupees four to five lacs for doing private business. He started laying pressure on his wife to bring the aforesaid amount from her father. The complainant''s daughter and his son-in-law both came to the complainant''s house at Samastipur and made a demand of rupees four to five lacs. The complainant expressed his inability to meet the aforesaid demand of the son-in-law. Subsequently, the complainant''s daughter was admitted into M.A. Classes and she was kept in a Girls Hostel at Muzaffarpur by the family of her sasural and throughout she was being pressed for bringing rupees four to five lacs. However, when this amount was not paid by the complainant, his daughter was refused the expenses to be borne by his daughter in the Hostel towards studies. Then the complainant, under compulsion, started bearing her expenditures. The complainant''s daughter used to go to the house of her husband on her own accord but she was always ill-treated and the demand of rupees four to five lacs were still persisted. Ultimately, the complainant''s daughter was deserted by her husband and his family members and her property, which were gifted to her at the time of marriage, were usurped. In the year, 1987, in the month of May, the complainant and his daughter both went to meet Vagish Kumar in Nepal and they found that the husband was in the company of a Nepali girl. When a protest was lodged in this connection, Vagish Kumar misbehaved with the complainant and his daughter and humiliated them. In the year, 1991, on the occasion of the death of mother of Vagish Kumar, the complainant sent his son to the Sasural of his daughter but the son was also humiliated and insulted and sent back. The family of the complainant''s son-in-law kept on demanding rupees four to five lacs in order to take back his daughter then the complaint was filed.

It was submitted by the petitioners lawyer that if at all there was any allegation of tortures etc., it ended in the year, 1987 when, as alleged, the complainant''s daugher was banished from her Sasural, so the cognizance taken u/s 498A, I.P.C. was time barred and illegal. It was, further, submitted that it was the complainant''s daughter herself who had deserted her husband''s family and so a matrimonial suit for divorce was filed by the husband and it was decreed and, therefore, the allegation of desertion of the daughter of the complainant by the husband is also not substantiated nor it was true and so the complaint was filed just to harass the petitioners. Moreover, if at all there was any allegation of tortures etc., it pertained to the husband only (petitioner No. 1) and the other family members were unnecessarily prosecuted just for harassment and vexation.

So far question whether the offence u/s 498A, I.P.C. was time barred, it has to be examined whether an offence u/s 498A, I.P.C. refers to physical tortures only. The wordings in Section 498A, I.P.C. refers to cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives. This cruelty has been explained thus-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

From the aforesaid wordings used in the aforesaid section regarding cruelty meted out to a wife, it is apparent that it is not only the physical tortures, assaults etc. which amount to cruelty. The demand of any property including money persistently will also be included in the mental torture or cruelty being committed upon the wife by the husband or by his family members. The persistent demands, so long as wife remains at the house of her husband or even at the house of her father, will be a continuing cruelty to the wife. In the instance case, the alleged complaint case was filed on 03.07.1996, as stated at paragraph-11 of the quashing application. The alleged divorce suit ended in a judgment on 23.08.1996, as stated in paragraph-9 of the quashing application so apparently divorce suit ended in a decree in favour of the petitioners of this quashing application. The complaint was filed on 03.07.1996 itself and on that date the complainant''s daughter was still the wife of her husband Vagish Kumar. The demand of rupees four to five lacs was continuing upto the date when the complaint was filed, as has been stated by the complainant in his complaint petition, and it was under these circumstances that the husband had refused to take back his wife unless his demands were fulfilled, that the complainant was compelled to file his complaint petition so the demand of rupees four to five lacs was a continuing demand and in this view of the matter, when the complaint was filed, the offence of cruelty, as defined u/s 498A, I.P.C., was not yet time barred. So far the allegation that it was the wife herself who had deserted her husband and for which there was a matrimonial suit which ended in a decree in favour of the husband, it is to be noted that, during the course of submission, it was admitted that the divorce decree was still pending in appeal so there was no finality to the judgment of divorce and, hence, the allegation of the husband that he was deserted by his wife, the complainant''s daughter, cannot be accepted as the final truth. So the desertion of the complainant''s daughter by her husband or the allegation of the husband regarding his desertion by the wife are all disputed facts which can be decided only by the trial Court. This court cannot take into consideration the divorce decree in order to come to a definite conclusion. In the result, I am of the opinion that the order of cognizance neither suffered from any illegality u/s 498A, I.P.C. nor did it suffer four any irregularity on account of the disputed facts. Hence, I am of the opinion that this quashing application is not fit to be allowed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.