Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 261 (JHR)

Nand Kishore Jaiswal v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-03

D.K.SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Petition No. 837 of 2004 giving rise to Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 389 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A/406, IPC as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the husband of the complainant-informant. The wife of the petitioner Suchita Jaiswal, complainant-informant herein, alleged inter alia that on the eve of their marriage on 27.6.2001 cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- with other household articles worth Rs. 4,00,000/-were gifted but when she came to her matrimonial home, she was tortured in various manner for not providing golden ring and Maruti Car etc. by her parents and it was alleged that her in- laws including her husband started pressurizing to fetch Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for purchasing a car and in this connection she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. It was alleged that she was threatened by her in-laws to be killed after setting her body on fire failing to fulfill their demand. It was specified in the petition that the petitioner-husband followed his wife to her parental home where he demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A separate complaint No. 525 of 2004 was filed before the CJM on 12.4.2004 for the torture perpetrated to her in various ways. 3. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Bhagat, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant. 4. Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel submitted that this Court took pains to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife by referring the matter to the Conciliator, JHALSA but of no avail and the learned Conciliator by his report dated 13.4.2007 commented that the parties appeared before him on 12.4.2007 but none of them was found at all serious to compromise either by restoring harmonlous conjugal relationship or by dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. The learned Conciliator commented that they were found more interested in indulging in litigation and when he extended specific suggestion for the restoration of their peaceful conjugal life, the opposite party Suchita Jaiswal was not in favour of it for her apprehension of being tortured. On the other hand, she agreed for divorce by mutual consent if Rs. The learned Conciliator commented that they were found more interested in indulging in litigation and when he extended specific suggestion for the restoration of their peaceful conjugal life, the opposite party Suchita Jaiswal was not in favour of it for her apprehension of being tortured. On the other hand, she agreed for divorce by mutual consent if Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to her in one lump sum by the petitioner-husband but even then she was not inclined to withdraw or compromise the criminal case registered under Section 498A, IPC. The Opposite Party-Wife reduced her statement in writing before the learned Conciliator expressing her willingness for dissolution of marriage with the mutual consent and was not inclined to go to her matrimonial home because of threat on her life. Learned Counsel pointed out that the complainant started living separately since 7.3.2003 and when the entire effort of the petitioner failed to bring the complainant-wife back to her matrimonial home, he filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 3/2004 on 16.4.2004 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and only after two months of that suit, the present complaint was brought about maliciously against the petitioner with false allegations. The complainant simultaneously initiated a proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC on 2.7.2004 for her maintenance by putting undue pressure, though the petitioner expressed his willingness and readiness to keep his wife with all dignity and honour. The informant though had complained of physical torture and various ailments but without any injury report or prescription in support of such allegation and therefore, the entire allegation is fit to be disbelieved and the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory ball. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the report of the Conciliator and the statement of the wife-opposite party in her writing before the Conciliator, 1 find it to be a fit case for consideration, and accordingly, the petitioner Nand Kishore Jaiswal, in the event of his arrest/surrender within 10 days of this order, is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Sadar) PS. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Sadar) PS. Case No. 389 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2016 of 2004 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr PC and that the bailers would be his near relatives and he would appear in the Court regularly.