Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 209 (JHR)

Munni Delli @ Munni v. State of Bihar

2005-03-11

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2005
JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J.- This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings passed in Palamau (Daltonganj) P.S. Case No. 396/98, G.R. No. 1282/98 dated 23.11.1998 including order dated 12.2.1999, whereby and whereunder learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the application are that Manjari Khatoon lodged a complaint in the Court of learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj against her husband and 10 others including petitioners alleging, inter alia, therein that she was married with Md. Shamsad Alam on 18.4.1998 with Mehar of Rs. 11,000/- and before that Rs. 33,000/- was also given for purchase of scooter. On the next day of marriage complainant was not given food and she was not properly treated by her husband and in-laws and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was also demanded. She came back to her Naihar and when she went to her sasural, it is stated that accused persons including petitioners tried to coerce her during her stay for 2-3 days and thereafter there was a panchayati but even then the matter could not be resolved and when she tried to get the matter reconciled, it could not be done due to non-cooperation of her husband and, therefore, this complaint case has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are residing in different districts in their respective sasurals and petitioner Smt. Munni Devi @ Munni is married sister of Shamsad Alam and petitioner Smt. Maghfura Bibi is mother-in-law of Md. Naushad Alam, who is the elder brother of Md. Shamsad Alam and they did not know about the entire story which has occurred and they learnt from the records of the case that on 18.4.1998 Md. Shamsad Alam married with complainant and he did not find any characteristic of woman in Manjari Khatun and in the night itself the husband of !he complainant Md. Shamsad Alam and they did not know about the entire story which has occurred and they learnt from the records of the case that on 18.4.1998 Md. Shamsad Alam married with complainant and he did not find any characteristic of woman in Manjari Khatun and in the night itself the husband of !he complainant Md. Shamsad Alam called the relations to see that a fraud has been committed upon him by the parents of Manjari Khatun and on the next day the relations of Manjari Khatun like the brothers and others were called at Chatra at his residence and a Panchayati was held and punches decided to get the marriage terminated for the reasons that Manjari Khatun has no womanhood and accordingly they decided to return all the articles along with Denhohar to Manari Khatun, which was received by her brother and all the members of Panchayati signed the paper as witnesses thereon. It was further pointed out that Md. Shamsad Alam lodged a complaint four months prior to the filing of the complaint against the parents of Manari Khatun for playing fraud and taking away the articles under Sections 406/420, IPC and that complaint was transferred to Sadar P.S. Chatra, which was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No. 85/98, in which warrant was issued on 14.9.1998 and after getting bail order from the learned Court, this complaint case was filed by way of vengeance. 4. It is also submitted that from pc• rusal of entire FIR in Palamau Sadar P.S. Case No. 396/98 (Annexure 1), it will appear that no case is made out against the petitioners and no allegation has been made in any of the paragraphs of the complaint petition against the petitioners. There is general allegation that accused persons did not behave properly with her within 2-3 days and tortured her, when she remained with her husband. It is also pointed out that petitioners are living with their respective husbands at different places. It is also alleged that on 26.4.1998 the complainant has already been divorced and in this regard a panchayati was also held on 15.9.1998 wherein all the panches signed the paper. In this connection reliance was placed upon Smt. Om Wati and Anr. VS. It is also pointed out that petitioners are living with their respective husbands at different places. It is also alleged that on 26.4.1998 the complainant has already been divorced and in this regard a panchayati was also held on 15.9.1998 wherein all the panches signed the paper. In this connection reliance was placed upon Smt. Om Wati and Anr. VS. State through Delhi Administration, 2001 (1) JLJR (SC)913, wherein it has been held that when upon consideration of records of the case the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused stating reasons therefore. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that cognizance in the case has been taken after due application of mind by the learned Court below and, therefore, order does not require interference. 6. Admittedly, petitioners are sisters of the husband of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and as per allegation, torture is said to have been committed within two to three days of stay of complainant-O.P. No.2 in her sasural and as per material on record, it is clear that the husband who is also coaccused in this case stayed with his wife, complainant-O.P. No.2 and during her stay at her sasural, panchayati had also taken place. It has also come that prior to lodging of this complaint case, co-accused Md. It has also come that prior to lodging of this complaint case, co-accused Md. Shamsad Alam who is husband of the complainant-O.P. No.2, had filed a complaint case against the parents of complainant-O.P. No. 2 under Sections 406/ 420, IPC and the same complaint was sent to Sadar P.S. for registration of case and thereafter Sadar P.S. Case No. 85 of 1998 was registered and in that case, parents of complainant-O.P. No.2 had to seek bail, therefore, it can safely be said that the instant case is a counter-blast to the other case filed by the husband of the complainant-O.P. No.2 and these two petitioners who are lady, are married one and admittedly, they are sisters of the husband of the complainant-O.P. No.2 and they reside in their respective sasurals and their sasural are situated in different districts and within two to three days, allegation of torture by these two petitioners do not appear to be such as to make them liable for so-called torture on complainant-O.P. No.2 and when husband of the complainant was aggrieved and he had filed a case under Sections 406/420, IPC against complainant-O.P. No. 2, it is but natural that by way of retaliation, the complainant-O.P. No.2 has filed this case in order to pressurize the complainant of Sadar P.S. Case No. 85 of 1998 so that some sort of compromise may be arrived at between the parties. But it nowhere appears that these two persons played any specific role in committing cruelty on complainant-O.P No.2. Further, action of complainant-O.P No.2 appears to be vindictive towards these petitioners who are closely related with the husband of complainant-O.P. No.2 and in order to harass them and victimize them, she has filed this complaint case which appears to be actuated with malice. 7. In that view of the matter, this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction provided under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised and in exercise of that power, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings passed in Palamau (Daltonganj) P.S. Case No. 396 of 1998, G.R. No. 1282 of 1998 including the order dated 12.2.1999, is hereby quashed, so far as these two petitioners are concerned.