Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Agasti Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-30

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Order The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioners against the order impugned dated 6.12.2008 passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa by which the Discharge Petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected in Sonua P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008,corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2008. 2. The informant Opposite Party No.2 herein presented a written report before Sonua Police Station on 17.5.2008 alleging, inter alia that she was married to the Petitioner No.1 Agasti Pradhan in the year 2003 and a considerable amount was spent on the eve of her marriage and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial home. She further stated that she had instituted a case against her husband for the reason that he had been extending torture for dowry but the High Court intervened by asking her husband to keep her properly and pursuant to such direction of the High Court, she had been living at her matrimonial home with her husband. She further alleged that in the night of 17.5.2008 her' husband petitioner No.1 pressurized and assaulted her to withdraw her earlier case lest she would be killed but in the meantime she escaped and informed the co -villagers. She further alleged that the petitioner No.2 had been abetting her husband. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Sen submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence much less alleged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted against the petitioner. Similarly, no injury report was presented with the written report before the Police so as to attract the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. She was there in her matrimonial home with her husband on the direction of the High Court so the case of wrongful restraint cannot be made out for the alleged offence and even no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner No.2 Sahadev Pradhan against whom there was allegation that he had been abetting her husband but under what manner, the informant was silent. 4. Advancing his argument, Mr. 4. Advancing his argument, Mr. Sen submitted that while considering the Discharge Petition of the petitioner, the learned Court below failed to take into consideration that the informant O.P. No.2 of this case had already filed a Complaint C/1 Case No. 159 in the Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the same and similar cause of action which was pending and in that view of the matter the subsequent case lodged under Section 498A was not maintainable. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant-Opposite Party No.2 strongly opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner No. 1 defied the direction of the Jharkhand High Court whereby he was directed to keep the informant with all dignity and honour and that he had been pressuring to withdraw the case which was earlier lodged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The informant was consistent that the petitioner No.2 was abetting his brother to commit offence and in the facts and circumstances none of the petitioners can be exonerated from his criminal liability. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa failed to take into consideration that a previous Complaint Petition bearing C/1 No. 159 of 2007 was pending before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur against the petitioner-husband for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the plain reading of the written report of the instant case did not speak about the fresh allegation or any allegation in the nature of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code except the assault made to her by way of putting pressure to withdraw her Complaint Case, which was pending before the, C.J.M., Jamshedpur. In that view of the matter, I find that prima facie no offence is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Sonua P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 and there appears substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that since the informant was residing at her matrimonial home under the instructions of the High Court, no wrongful restrain could be alleged against the petitioners. 7. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted against the husband-petitioner. The informant failed to point out any element of offence of alleged abetment against the petitioner No.2 Sahadev Pradhan. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner No.2 Sahadev Pradhan is discharged from his criminal liability in the instant case. I find that the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie attracted against the petitioner-husband Agasti Pradhan. 9. This Cr. Revision is allowed in part in the manner indicated above by setting aside the order impugned dated 6.12.2008 passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 152 of 2008. Let the S.D.J.M. proceed against the petitioner Agasti Pradhan in Summons Trial Case.