IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

NARESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ……

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. …… OPPOSITE

PARTIES

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL REVISION

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PG. NO.

1. Revision Petition under section 397
read with 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the
Petitioners along with affidavit.
2.
3.
4.
5. Impugned Order
6. Vakalatnama
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. OF 2024

In the matter of an application under

Section 397 read with 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA @ SASUR NARESH KUMAR

GUPTA, age about – 69 Years, Male, S/o Shri Paltu Sah, R/o

Near Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar, P.S. - Loni,

P.O. – ______, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

…… Petitioner No. 1

2. AMARLATA DEVI @ SAS AMARLATA DEVI, age about –

68 Years, Female, W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, R/o Near

Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar, P.S. - Loni, P.O. –

______, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

…… Petitioner No. 2

3. MANSI KUMARI @ MANSI GUPTA @ NANAD MANSI

KUMARI, age about – 23 Years, Female, D/o Naresh Kumar

 Gupta, R/o Near Bright Child School, New Vikas Nagar,

P.S. - Loni, P.O. – ______, District Ghaziabad, Uttar

Pradesh.

…… Petitioner No. 3

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR …... Opposite Party No.

2. ARTI KUMARI, age about 25 years, Female, D/o

Ramchandra Sah, W/o Vishnu Kumar Gupta, R/o Ward

No.5, Vill- Makhachak, P.S. - Bakhri, Dist- Begusarai,

Bihar.

…… Opposite Party No.

To,
 The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Chief

Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and his fellow

Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf of the

petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the present application has been preferred by the

Petitioners invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this

Hon`ble Court as enshrined and embodied under section 397

r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the Order

dated 10.06.2024 (hereinafter also referred as “Impugned

Order dated 10.06.2024”) passed by Learned Chanchal

Kumar Tiwari, Additional Session Judge – II, Begusarai

(hereinafter also referred as “Ld. Trail Court”) in Session

Trial No. 945 of 2023 arising out of Mahila P.S Case No. 18

of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the Ld. Trial Court has

erroneously and arbitrarily dismissed the discharge

application filed by the Petitioners.

2. That the Petitioners has not moved before this Hon'ble

Court earlier for same relief nor has filed any application for

any other relief of similar nature in connection with the said

Impugned Order dated 10.06.2024.

3. That the prosecution case, in brief, as alleged in the FIR are

as follows:

(a) That on 21.02.2021 the informant got married with one

Vishnu Kumar. In the marriage the father of informant

gifted a sum of 4,00,000/INR into the account of

Vishnu Kumar having account number

712010110006948 along with 5 (tola/bhor) of gold

jeweler. 10 (bharitola) of silver jewellery, furniture,

electronic appliances and 2 lakh rupees cash;

(b) The informant returned to her parental home (mayke),

village Makhachak after living in ber sasural for five

days following the marriage. Following that, on

28.02.2021, her husband moved her to his new home at

New Vikas Nagar, Loni ward no. 5, Gali no. 10,

Ghaziabad the petitioners, the informant's husband, and

other co-accused persons in the FIR abused her

because they were unhappy with the gifts they had

 received in the marriage and wanted more, including a

four-wheel drive car and a 100 Gaj plot in Delhi. The

informant was locked in a room, tortured, and denied

food by the accused when she refused to comply with

their in-laws' requests. Additionally, she was

physically molested by her Nandoi, Deepak Shah;

(c) On 03.06.2022 all the accused persons of the FIR tried

to kill her by tying towel in her neck and when they

informant started to shout, the Neighbors came and

rescued her. After happening of that event she called

her brother Dhiraj Kumar and her in-laws tortured him

and ask her to leave her home. Following the event, the

informant returned to her paternal home in Makhachak

and filed a police report.

That on the basis of written report of the Opposite Party No.

2, Mahila Police registered the present FIR being Mahila

P.S Case No. 18 of 2022 dated 02.08.2022 for the alleged

offence under sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. That the

Petitioner No. 1 has been arrayed as Accused No. 2,

Petitioner No. 2 has been arrayed as Accused No. 3, and

 Petitioner No. 3 has been arrayed as Accused No. 7 under

the present FIR.

A Certified Copy of Mahila P.S

Case No. 18 of 2022 has been

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure – P/1.

4. That initially, the present F.I.R was instituted under section

498A, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas, further the Investigation

Agency has submitted the Final form against the Petitioners

vide Charge Sheet No. 2 of 2023 dated 02.01.2023 under

sections 341, 323, 307, 498A, 354, 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

A Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

No. 2 of 2023 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/2.

5. That the operating of the Impugned Order dated 10.06.2024

is being reproduced hereinbelow for the kind consideration

of this Hon’ble Court: –

 “From perusal of the case record alongwith case

diary, it appears that petitioners are named in the FIR.

Witnesses at para no. 3,4,8,9 have taken the name of

these petitioners in alleged crime. At para no. 7 is the

place of occurrence. At para no. 23 is the supervision

note in which case found true against the petitioners.

At para no. 112 police has submitted charge sheet

against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate found

sufficient material available against the petitioners

vide order dated 24.04.2023 took cognizance of offence

U/s 341/323 307/498(A)/354/504/34 of IPC & 3/4 of

D.P. Act. There are sufficient materials available

against the petitioners in the case diary for framing of

charge. Accordingly, the discharge petition of accused

is hereby rejected”.

6. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner No.

1 is the father-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law,

Petitioner No. 3 is Sister-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2.

7. That it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2

are ordinary law-abiding citizens, whereas, the Petitioner

No. 3 is a student of Bachelor of Arts.

8. That the allegations have not been investigated properly as

the Petitioner No. 3 had appeared examination of

‘Education – Reflective Learning’ on dated 02.06.2022 at

09:00 A.M. at Bhim Rao Ambedker College, Delhi and it is

almost impossible to travel approx. 1500 KM to the alleged

place of incident and commit the crime.

A Copy of Hall Ticket & Result

card has been annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure – P/3.

9. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

alleged that on 03.06.2022, all the accused persons have

made an attempt to kill Opposite Party No. 2, and

meanwhile, the neighbours gathered thereby who upon the

request of the Opposite Party No. 2 called her brother

named Dheeraj who has come thereby and called

Emergency No. 112, whereas, the same are false and

concocted allegations. Since, the said call was made by the

Accused No. 1 named Vishnu Kumar Gupta and the

Petitioner No. 1, wherein Accused No. 1 has informed the

Police Personnel that brother of the Opposite Party No. 2

 named Dheeraj along with two unknown persons had taken

Opposite Party No. 2 with them.

A Copy of Call details of

Emergency No. 112 dated

03.06.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/4.

10. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

made an omnibus allegation against all the accused persons

that on 03.06.2022, all the accused persons have made an

attempt to kill Opposite Party No. 2. Whereas, it is pertinent

to note herein that the alleged incident has been alleged to

have happened under P.S. Loni Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh,

while, in contrary to the same under the Supervision Report

the Place of incident has been mentioned as ‘Village-

Bhramarpur, P.S. – Bihpur, District – Bhagalpur’,

moreover, under another complaint made by Opposite Party

No. 2 in Bihar, the above incident has not been mentioned

anywhere.

11. That in connection to the present FIR the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer has submitted Supervision Report vide Memo

 No. 1231 dated 24.08.2022 (hereinafter also referred as

“Supervision Report”) in which the statement of Opposite

Party No. 2 was taken by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer

(hereinafter also referred as “SDPO”) in which the place of

incident has been alleged as Village Bhramarpur, Police

Station- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. Whereas, under the

present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has alleged place of

incident as Loni Ghaziabad, whereas, under another

complaint made by Opposite Party No. 2 in Bihar, the above

incident has not been mentioned anywhere. Furthermore,

under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has told that

she called her brother Dheeraj after the incident, whereas, in

the report of the SDPO, brother Gaurav has been told to

inform on 112.

A Copy of Memo No. 1231 dated

24.08.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/5.

12. That under the said Supervision Report the statement of

witness Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra Shah, was

taken under which the incident has been alleged as Village –

 Bhramarpur, Police Station Bihpur, District Bhagalpur,

whereas, the Opposite Party No. 2, has alleged the place of

incident as Loni Ghaziabad under the present FIR, whereas,

in the very first complaint given by the Opposite Party No. 2

in Loni police station, there is no mention of the above

incident. Furthermore, under the present FIR the Opposite

Party No. 2 has alleged that her brother named Dheeraj

called 112, whereas, under the Supervision Report, it has

been alleged that her brother named Gaurav had informed to

police on 112.

13. That under the Supervision Report, the Statement of witness

Santosh Kumar S/o Vishwanath Shah, was taken by the

SDPO in which the incident has been alleged as Village –

Bhramarpur, P.S. Bihpur, Dist. – Bhagalpur. Whereas,

under the present FIR, the place of incident has been alleged

as Loni Ghaziabad, furthermore, under the first complaint

given by Opposite Party No. 2 in the Loni P.S., Ghaziabad,

the alleged incident has not been mentioned at all.

14. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

alleged that she had called her brother named Dheeraj after

the alleged incident, whereas, under the Supervision Report,

 it has been alleged by the Opposite Party No. 2 that her

brother named Gaurav had informed on 112.

15. That the Petitioners have been alleged of attempt to murder

by the Opposite Party No. 2, whereas, it is pertinent to note

herein that neither any evidence of injury has been taken on

record, nor any wound examination has been done till date.

16. That the Investigating Officer of the present FIR has

submitted Letter dated 10.01.2023 before the Ld. Trail

Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that there is no

wound examination evidence given by the Opposite Party

No. 2.

A Copy of Letter dated 10.01.2023

has been annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure – P/6.

17. That the Petitioners reside with their family at a different

address from the Opposite Party No. 2 and all the

allegations made by the Opposite Party No. 2 are false and

baseless and the allegations have been made just to harass

the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar

and Others (2022) 6 SCC 599 has considered the quashing

 of the FIR when the allegations are general and omnibus in

nature and no specific details as to how and when the

complainant was subjected to harassment for dowry by the

husband or his family members.

18. That in the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., ( 2014 ) 8 SCC

273 it was also observed: -

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial

disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is

greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was

introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of

harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and

his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a

cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious

place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as

weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The

simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his

relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number

of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers

of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades

are arrested."
19. Further, in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Anr., ( 2010 ) 7 SCC 667 it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of

these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the

heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper

deliberations. We come across a large number of such

complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed

with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in

the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are

also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous

social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the

social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.

They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small

incidents should not be reflected in the criminal

complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on

their advice or with their concurrence. The learned

members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession

must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every

complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem

and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in

arriving at an amicable resolution of that human

problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of

their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and

tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of

the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not

lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, 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 relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth

and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find

out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these

complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all

his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,

even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to

ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely

careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and

must take pragmatic realities into consideration while

dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of

 harassment of husband's close relations who had been

living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited

the place where the complainant resided would have an

entirely different complexion. The allegations of the

complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care

and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal

trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the

relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of

common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant

if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in

jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of

amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering

is extremely long and painful."

20. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., ( 2012 )

10 SCC 741 it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an

apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of

G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3

SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this

Court had held that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute

wherein all family members had been roped into the

matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.

Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely

agree that:-

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in

recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main

purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle

down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial

skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious

proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of

the family are also involved with the result that those who

could have counselled and brought about rapprochement

are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused

in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need

not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial

litigation so that the parties may ponder over their

defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual

agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law

where it takes years and years to conclude and in that

process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing

 their cases in different courts." The view taken by the

judges in this matter was that the courts would not

encourage such disputes."

21. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana

(2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that: –

"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."

22. That the Opposite Party No. 2 has made false and baseless

allegations under the present FIR by way of a pre-planned

entrapment with the intention of harassing the Accused

Persons physically, financially and mentally, whereas, no

offence can be attributed upon the Petitioners even the

allegations are taken to be true. The Petitioners have been

falsely implicated by the Opposite Party No. 2, whereas,

there are no positive evidence available on record against

the Petitioners.
23. That there is no positive evidence against the Petitioners in

the present charge sheet and also no prima facie case is

made out against the Petitioners.

24. That prior to lodging the present FIR the Opposite Party No.

2 has filed a Complaint on 03.05.2022 at Loni P.S.,

Ghaziabad (hereinafter also referred as “Complaint dated

03.05.2022”).

A Copy of Complaint dated

03.05.2022 has been annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

– P/7.

25. That the above-mentioned Complaint dated 03.05.2022 was

transferred to the Family Counseling Center Ghaziabad on

13.06.2022, whereby, on 01.07.2022 was fixed to call the

other party and thereafter hearing was scheduled at Family

Counseling Center on 22.07.2022 on which the Opposite

Party No. 2 was not present, whereas, the Accused No. 1

named Vishnu Kumar Gupta i.e., Husband of the Opposite

Party No. 2 was present. Further, on 12.08.2022 the next

hearing date was fixed on which Opposite Party No. 2 again

remained absent, whereas, then the official of Family

 Counseling Center contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 and

upon the consent of the Opposite Party No. 2 said complaint

was disposed vide Order dated 12.08.2022.

26. That under the present FIR the Opposite Party No. 2 has

made allegations of making an attempt to kill her on all the

accused. The above incident is alleged to have happened in

Ghaziabad but on the other hand during the course of the

investigation the IO has recorded the statement of the

Opposite Party No. 2 that the place of incident as Village –

Bhramarpur P.S. Bihpur, District – Bhagalpur.

27. That under the Supervision Report the statement of

Opposite Party No. 2 was recorded under which the place of

incident has been alleged as Village Bhramarpur Police

Station Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. Whereas, under

the Fardbeyan given by Opposite Party No. 2 in the present

FIR, the place of incident has been alleged as Loni

Ghaziabad, furthermore, under the said Complaint dated

03.05.2022, the above incident has not been mentioned at

all.

28. That under the Fardbeyan given by Opposite Party No. 2 in

the present FIR, it has been alleged that the Opposite Party
 No. 2 had called his brother named Dheeraj, while in the

Supervision Report, it has been averted that her brother

Gaurav called PCR on 112.

29. That under the Supervision Report the statements of

witnesses namely (i) Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra

Shah, (ii) Kajal Devi. W/o Shri Ram Chandra Shah, (iii)

Santosh Kumar, S/o Shri Vishwanath Shah, were taken by

the SDPO in which the incident was reported at Village

Bhramarpur Police Station - Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur,

Bihar, whereas, under the Fardbeyan given by Opposite

Party No. 2 in the present FIR, the place of incident has

been shown as Loni, Ghaziabad and in the first complaint

i.e., said Complaint dated 03.05.2022 given at P.S. Loni,

Ghaziabad, nothing related to the same was mentioned.

30. That the Opposite Party No. 2 has levied allegations upon

Petitioners of causing attempt to murder but neither any

evidence related to injury has been ever submitted by the

Opposite Party No. 2 nor the same has been surfaced during

the course of Investigation and as such no offence can be

attributed upon the Petitioners, thus no prima facia case is

made out against the Petitioners.

31. That the Petitioners have never demanded dowry from

Opposite Party No. 2, nor did they ever molest, nor did they

ever try to kill her, nor has any incident as alleged has ever

taken place, the Petitioners have been falsely implicated by

the Opposite Party No. 2 and her family.

32. That the Petitioners live at a different address from the

Opposite Party No. 2 and all the allegations made by

Opposite Party No. 2 are false and baseless and have been

made to harass the accused and the process of law has been

misused by Opposite Party No. 2.

33. That the present FIR was lodged by the Opposite Party No.

2 in connivance with her family members with an intention

of causing trouble in a premeditated manner to the

Petitioners. The Petitioners have not committed any crime

against the Opposite Party No. 2. That Opposite Party No in

connivance with her family members has falsely implicated

the Petitioners under the present FIR and no specific

allegations has been levied against the Petitioners.

34. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioners is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant F.I.R,

moreover, whole prosecution story against the Petitioners

 appears to be out and out a bundle of falsehood just to arm

twist her Husband that is Accused No. 1 of the instant F.I.R.

with oblique motive.

35. That it is most respectfully entire allegations against the

Petitioners mentioned in the instant F.I.R are general and

omnibus in nature made with malafide intention just to arm

twist her Husband that is Accused No. 1 of the instant F.I.R.

with oblique motive.

36. That it is most respectfully submitted that the there is no

specific and direct allegations of overt act upon the

Petitioners.

37. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioners has

not made any demand of dowry from the Opposite Party

No. 2 nor the Petitioners have caused any torture or

harassment to the Opposite Party No. 2 in any manner as

alleged.

38. That it is most respectfully submitted that the allegation of

giving cash or costly articles as well as demand of dowry is

wrong, false and baseless and the same has been made with

oblique motive just to undue pressurize the Husband i.e.,

Accused No. 1 of the instant F.I.R.

39. That it is most respectfully submitted that from sincere

perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the allegations limited to the

Petitioners are false, fabricated, and concocted, whereas, it

is pertinent note herein that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not

adduced any positive evidence in support of her false,

fabricated, and concocted story such as injury report. Thus,

the allegation of Opp. Party No. 2 upon the Petitioners of

violence and dowry demand is false, unreasonable and

frivolous. Hence, section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

cannot be attributed against the Petitioner.

40. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Police

Officer was duty bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry

before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the

categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be

made, as mandated by the Hon`ble Apex Court in Lalita

Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

41. That it is most respectfully submitted that the ingredients of

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is following;\

(a) The woman must be married;

(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and.

 (c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown

either by the husband of the woman or by the relative

of her husband.

This section’s bare perusal points out that the word ‘cruelty’

covers the occurrence of the following Act(s):

(i) any willful behaviour which might lead a woman to

suicide or cause serious damage or danger to life, limb,

or life;

(ii) a woman’s health (mental or physical);

(iii) The harassment of a woman in the event of such

harassment, with a view to obliging her or any other

person related to her to fulfil an illegal requirement for

any property or valuable security.

42. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner(s)

has done any act which falls under the ambit of the section

498 A, whereas, the same can be substantiate by the fact

that the Petitioner(s) don’t share same mess / roof from

initial stage of the marriage of the Accused No. 1 and the

Opposite Party No. 2.

43. That it is further humbly contented that the facts of this

case, upon a perusal of the contents of the instant FIR, it

would be manifest that general allegation are levied against

the Petitioner(s). The Opposite Party No. 2 at instance

alleged that Petitioner(s) harassed her mentally and

physically and further demanded dowry from her. Whereas,

no specific and distinct allegations have been made against

either of the Petitioner(s) herein, i.e., none of the

Petitioner(s) have been attributed any specific role in

furtherance of the general allegations made against them.

This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to

ascertain the role played by each Petitioner in furtherance of

the offence. The allegations are therefore general and

omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on

account of small skirmishes, therefore may be do not

warrant prosecution.

44. That it is most respectfully submitted that the instant FIR is

false and frivolous and the same can be further ascertained

from the fact that the Opposite Party No. 2 while registering

the instant FIR has made the Petitioner(s) as accused who

not even shares same mess / roof right from initial stage of
 the marriage of the Accused No. 1 and the Opposite Party

No. 2. That in light of the same the Petitioner(s) relies on a

landmark judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC

273, wherein the apex court has observed: –

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial

disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is

greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was

introduced with avowed object to combat the menace

of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband

and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a

cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a

dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are

used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled

wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband

and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a

quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and

grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living

abroad for decades are arrested.”

45. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that the

Hon`ble Apex Court has at numerous instances expressed

 concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the

increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband

in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term

ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the

accused.

46. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Haryana 1992

SCC (Cri)426 has held that “in the backdrop of the

interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code

under chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise

of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent power under section 482 of the Code which we

have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following

categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such

power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

process of any down any precise, clearly defined and

sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of

cause wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused.

(2) where the allegations in the First Information

Report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers

under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview

of Section 155(2) of the Code

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in

support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute

a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted

by a police officer without an order of a

 Magistrate as contemplated under Section

155(2) of the Code.

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused.

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of

the proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of

the aggrieved party.

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

 accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge”.

47. That the above referred documents and contentions of

unimpeachable character and sterling quality, if juxtaposed

with the present case, would make it clear that no prima

facie case has been made out against the present

petitioner(s) as alleged.

48. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the allegations

made against the Petitioner(s) herein were omnibus in

nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has

been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the

Accused No. 1 (i.e., husband of the Opposite Party No. 2)

in-laws herein, and should be dealt with accordingly and for

the same the Petitioner(s) relies on Social Action Forum for

Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of

Law and Justice & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 443, wherein it

was observed: -

“4. Regarding the constitutionality of Section 498-A

IPC, in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and

others, it was held by the Supreme Court: -

"Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not

unconstitutional and ultra vires. Mere possibility of

abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a

legislation. Hence plea that S. 498A has no legal or

constitutional foundation is not tenable. The object of

the provisions is prevention of the dowry menace. But

many instances have come to light where the complaints

are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique

motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not

in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and

prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds

to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial

measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-

intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is

constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to

unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or

unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become

necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the

makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be

appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to

 take care of the situation within the existing frame-

work.”

49. That it is most respectfully submitted that if the Impugned

Order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Ld. Trail Court in

Session Trial No. 945 of 2023, is not set aside, it would

amount to miscarriage of justice to the Petitioners.

50. That the Petitioners has no other alternative efficacious

remedy than to filed the instant revision petition before this

Hon’ble Court.

51. That it is most respectfully submitted that the allegations

have been made with oblique motive and are not bona-fide.

It is in the interest of justice to set aside the Impugned Order

dated 10.06.2024, passed by the Ld. Trail Court in Session

Trial No. 945 of 2023 arising out of Begusarai Mahila P.S

Case No. 18 of 2022.

It is therefore, prayed that Your

Lordships may graciously be pleased to

admit this application and pleased to set

aside the Impugned Order dated

 10.06.2024 and/or allow the Discharge

Application filed by the Petitioners;

AND/OR

Pass interim order staying the

proceeding of Session Trial No. 945 of

2023 arising out of Begusarai Mahila

P.S Case No. 18 of 2022 pending in the

court of Learned Chanchal Kumar

Tiwari, Additional Session Judge – II,

Begusarai;

AND/OR

Pass such other order or orders Your

Lordships may deem fit and proper

under the facts and circumstances of

this case.

And for this the Petitioners shall ever pray.