Andey Ranga Rao AND Co., vs. Income Tax Officer

Pramod Sao @ Pramod Gupta

Urmila Devi

The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 arising out of Complaint Case No.2210 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the present complaint case has been instituted as against five named accused persons including these petitioners by the complainant vide Complaint Case No.2210 of 2008 in which she has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with one Manoj Gupta. Due to wedlock she was blessed with two children, though her marriage was solemnized in the year 2000, at that time substantial amount was given. She was started residing with her husband. Subsequently, she was removed from her matrimonial house. In the year 2006, there was a compromise between the parties but

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. She submits that the petitioner No.1 is doing business in Maharashtra and he is an income tax payee. She submits that the petitioner No.1 and 2 are residing at Maharashtra in Mumbai in spite of that they have been made accused. She submits that the allegations are there of demand, if any, that is against the husband and other in laws, so far these petitioners are concerned, falsely the case has been lodged and the case has been registered under Section 498A of the IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the complaint petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that the petitioners are the in-laws of the complainant and in view of that the case is made out against these petitioners also. She submits that as charge has already been framed and it is fixed for evidence.

In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation. In the solemn affirmation there is no allegation of any demand of torture, so far

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, however, nowadays, the said Sections is being misused which has been observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the relatives are unnecessarily made accused under the said Section, that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar reported in 2014 8 SCC 273.

At the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relatives which was considered in the case of Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2010 7 SCC 667.

The cases related to distant relatives was further subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao versus the State of Telangana reported in 2018 14 SCC 452.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner, who is happened to be the brother-in-law and sister-in-law and residing at Mumbai and even general and omnibus allegations are not there against them in spite of that the cognizance has been taken against these petitioners.

In view of that, it is further well settled that even if proceeding is proceeded before the learned Court and the High

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 arising out of Complaint Case No.2210 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

So far as the other accused persons are concerned, the learned court will proceed against them in accordance with law as this Court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance and entire quashing.

Pending petitions, if any, is also disposed of.