Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 198 (JHR)

Gauri Shankar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-09

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
Order The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 15.6.2004 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and one Mukesh Shastri. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 11 in this petition are own brothers of the husband of the complainant; petitioner Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 12 are their respective wives and sisters-in-law of the complainant; petitioner No. 9 is mother-in-law; petitioner No. 10 is father-in-law; Petitioner No. 13 is the daughter of petitioner No.11. The said petitioners have been sought to be implicated in a criminal case by the complainant on the ground that the petitioners alongwith her husband Mukesh Shastri tortured her for bringing dowry. Learned court below on the basis of the complaint, the solemn affirmation and the statement of the witnesses has taken cognizance of the said offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners and husband of the complainant Mukesh Shastri. 3. The petitioners have assailed the said order taking cognizance on the ground that the allegations made against them are omnibus and vague. There is no specific allegation of overt act. All the family members have been falsely implicated in the criminal case by the complainant for ulterior end. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that on perusal of the solemn affirmation of the complainant, which is said to be one of the basis for taking cognizance, it would be evident that the complainant has not whispered even a word constituting the said offence against these petitioners. Her entire allegations centered around her husband Mukesh Shastri. Mukesh Shastri is not a party in this petition. He further submitted that on the basis of the general and unspecific allegation and without any sufficient material there was no ground for taking cognizance of the said offence against these petitioners. Learned court below casually and without giving anxious consideration of the material on record has taken cognizance against all the petitioners by the impugned sweeping order, which has no legal basis and is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned A.P.P. as also Mr. M.S. Chhabra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No.2, have opposed the petitioners' prayer. Learned court below casually and without giving anxious consideration of the material on record has taken cognizance against all the petitioners by the impugned sweeping order, which has no legal basis and is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned A.P.P. as also Mr. M.S. Chhabra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No.2, have opposed the petitioners' prayer. It has been submitted that though there is no specific allegation against each of the petitioners, yet on overall reading and assessment of the facts appearing on record the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is constituted. The allegations of the complaint petition disclose sufficient materials at least against some of the petitioners. The impugned order, thus, cannot be said to be without any basis warranting interference of this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused and considered the facts and materials on record. Although on perusal of the complaint I find that there are some allegations against some of the petitioners, the same are not specific and convincing. The complainant in her solemn affirmation has not uttered a word against these petitioners. The complaint petition read with the solemn affirmation of the complainant, thus, do not disclose any sufficient material constituting offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against these petitioners. I, therefore, find no sufficient ground for taking cognizance under the said Section against these petitioners. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that learned court below has casually taken cognizance and issued summons against the petitioners without any sufficient material constituting the offence. This Court is, thus, unable to uphold the impugned order so far as it relates to the petitioners in this case. The order taking cognizance and issuance of summons against the petitioners are, thus, abuse of the process of the Court and the same deserve to be quashed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 15.6.2004 as also the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.