JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this application the petitioner Namrata Srivastava, one of the accused prayed for quashing the order dated 4.1.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna passed in Complaint Case No. 187 (C)/98 by which he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and directed for issuance of process.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 lodged a series of complaints before the police and the Courts at Patna as also at Delhi, The complainant firstly lodged complaint before the Inspector General of Police (CID), Bihar in the year 1981 wherein she inter alia, alleged that few months after her marriage, her in-laws started ill-treating with her in one way or the other. She further alleged that the in-laws demanded dowry and in such situation it was not possible to her to go and live with her in-laws. Pursuant to the said complaint an enquiry was made and the complainant came with the officials of tine CID Department to collect her personal belongings. Accordingly, all articles belonging to her were returned back. The petitioner’s further case is that thereafter opposite party No. 2 left the house of her in-laws and started living with her parents. However, on her own volition she went to Delhi to live with her husband and remained there for 2-3 months. The complainant again lodged a written complaint before the Delhi Police alleging that her in-laws had been demanding Rs. 2,00,000/ and on non-payment they started torturing her. The complainant then returned back to her parents house in Patna and lodged a complaint. The petitioner also narrated about series of complaints made by the complainant making allegations against her husband and in-laws. But so far this petitioner is concerned she has no concerned with the affairs of the complainant with the other accused persons.
3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.
4. At this stage, the only question falls for consideration is as to whether the allegations made in the complaint petition, if taken on its face value, constitute any offence and whether the impugned order taking cognizance by the Court below is in accordance with law or not. In the complaint petition various allegations have been made against the accused persons, who are the husband and tn-laws of the complainant. From the complaint petition it appears that the complainant- opposite party No. 2 lodged FIR in Delhi alleging that her husband demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- from the parents of the complainant. The complainant lodged another FIR at Patna alleging that after some time of the marriage of the complainant the marriage of the petitioner who is the sister-in-law of the complainant became finalized and there was a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the boy side. It is alleged that after finalisation of marriage the in-laws of the complainant started demanding money from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the in-laws of the complainant was regularly torturing the complainant and started demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant so that they may be able to pay the said amount in the marriage of their daughter who is the petitioner.
5. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance the Court is to go by the allegations made in the Complaint/FIR and was not required to consider the defence case, with a view to take a decision whether allegations are true or false. In other words the allegations made in the FIR/complaint have to be taken on its face value and in its entirety and the order of cognizance on the basis of such complaint cannot be quashed unless the Court is of the view that the allegations made therein did not disclose commission of offence for which cognizance has been taken. At the same time it is equally well settled that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression of needless harassment. The Court should be circumscriptive and judicious in exercising jurisdiction and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would not be an instrument in the hand of private complainant as vendetta to harass the person needlessly.
6. In the instant case as noticed above various allegations have been made by the complainant/opposite party against her husband and in-laws. But so far this petitioner is concerned there is no direct allegations which constitute any offence either under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code of under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no direct allegation that this petitioner either demanded dowry from the complainant or in any way tortured the complainant or did any overt act. Even then the Court below has taken cognizance as against this petitioner also. From perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner has already been married and she has been living with her husband and leading conjugal life. When there was no allegation against the petitioner the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance against her alongwith other accused persons. I fail to understand as to why it was necessary for the complainant to implicate the petitioner as a party to the proceeding. It is, therefore, a fit case so far this petitioner is concerned, where the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Papsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128,VI (1998) SLT 102 (SC), applies. It has been observed by the Apex Court that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 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 preliminary evidence or before summoning of the accused. I am, therefore, of the definite view that taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court and it will amount to unnecessary harassment to the petitioner who is not a party to the alleged demand of dowry or torture to the complainant.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance and the entire criminal prosecution as against the petitioner is hereby quashed.