Sudhir Kumar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another










































































        



     


 

 
  
 
   
  






  

! "

 

  

! "



  
#
$  
%&
'

(



  )))))
"

#  *
"  
"  



 +%
,%

-

".
/ 



0
' 1
#
.

 
2320#'

43 -
%

 "




. .. %



%



' 1
#&
6  7

"   
(



  
0#'
5 -&
7
 %

%



 


 %

"   &

 7
(


 "

#

".

.. % .7
%%
. 

67 '%% (
7

 ( &

"   
(
""

-



"  

 


( .

 
8
- -

 

 % 
 


"



.6

*
 


7

"   


 "

 / 
% 
 
84
 
!
 &
6


  

7 % 
  ##.6

" 
7 %   

"  
9



6 .

+&

% 
6

003

( 7%
6 



.7


.



7 &
  
6  "



(%

.

.. % 
%

"   

7










































































 (


" 7
 .

&
 "




+
67
 


67 
.





.
 

33

:   .


  
 

 

 ( 

7

".
%
  
 
 7

( 
 




.
.

 
   !
 

 "


+
 (
5

 
 
&

& 
.7


"   
.67
""


 "



% 

  


"


". 
 
;  .

:6
::;  % &
    &
 
6



%

 
( 

<
   

" 

% 
  



%

 "

 7
  .( 

. 
6

% 
* 

 &
 .. % 

%
 "



 
7

.


 

 ..

:   .



"   

.
 

   

"

%

7
 "


 
4
- -&
 
 "



 

"  
/ 


(


 7 





(  
* 

 &



=

% &
. 

 .

 
 

 "



%.




.7

 .



 


1 
"  
<
   


"   
(

 .




.

6 
 " 
  .
.6
 

 





 

 & 6 
7
% 
( 
:   .

 

 .
"



 % 


< > .
"
- 

5 




?

 

        
- .
'"" .
/ 04

&


&
6  

"" ..

""

- %

 
 .( 


 


< > .
"
- 
 .












































































  

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

9

 %


 ( &
.   .

  "7


,%

".

6 ..




%

'

 
 %
.   .

 

. %&
5






  

7

"   


 "













































































 . ( ..

 % 
.. % 

 "


/ 
6

7
  
"

..7
"  
  




.
.


003   

(  


"   

 7

 ( 
 

 .

".

 
 
. ..
.



".
 "

..7


" 

 "





  

8&

6 

"
 

"   
/



"7 




!&40&2#


".

*

% 
.

%
6


 6


"   
(
 
""

- 
6
. 
 

$  &


".

.

  
(




  
 ..7

"7 ..7


".


'
" .



"
7

- 
.

6



. %


". 6
.

 
2320#'

43
5 -&

  
 %
 " . 7
( &

.
- 







"   


.
 
0#'
.

 &
%
 .(


 


6

& 6



  .7 5

.%


 ( &

"  
"  

   < 6 ( &
 %
1"  "


"  

..


 
1" 

" 
 


%

5

.


.
- ..
"



 




6
.6


(
(. .

6

$"

%

   @  
" +%2 




A 2/



@  
! "

 .

A 2/