Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 78 (JHR)

Mukesh Ranjan v. State of Jharkhand

2011-02-04

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMNET D.K.Sinha, J.-The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. arising out of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 265/07 corresponding to G.R. No. 3538/07 by which the learned C.J.M., Ranchi took cognizance of the offence for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against him by the order impugned dated 24.9.2007. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant-opposite party NO.2 was married to the petitioner on 7.5.2006 and she went to her matrimonial home. It was alleged that the husband-petitioner and in laws of the informant were not satisfied with the dowry, what were given on the eve of her marriage and for that they started hurling taunts and they used teasing words. She was even Subjected to assault and torture on various occasions for petty domestic reasons and she was directed in clear words to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and an Indica Car from her parents. She was treated inhumanely and finding no way out she then filed a police case against her husband and other in laws. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner-husband Mukesh Ranjan and the mother-in-law Purnima Devi after investigation of the case and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. During pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioner filed two interlocutory applications. In I.A. (Cr.) No. 2585 of 2009, petitioner sought for amendment in the relief portion by proposing addition in the prayer that the cognizance order dated 20.5.2009 may also be quashed. In I.A. No. 1749 of 2010, the petitioner requested for quashment of the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner, including the F.I.R., arising out of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 265/07 in view of the deed of settlement dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure-10) as also in view of the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2010 and 3.7.2010 respectively passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 213 of 2009 brought about under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended in I.A. No, 1749 of 2010 that Matrimonial Suit. which was initially filed by the petitioner husband under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge. It is contended in I.A. No, 1749 of 2010 that Matrimonial Suit. which was initially filed by the petitioner husband under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge. Family Court, Ranchi, was converted into one under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. The informant opposite party No.2 herein entered appearance and the Judgment was recorded in the said Matrimonial Suit with the observation, "From the pleadings and oral testimony it transpires that the parties are residing separately since last more than two years. Reconciliation between the parties has failed due to their different temperament and they are unable to lead a happy matrimonial life. They are adamant on their stand of divorce and further they deposed before the court that after divorce they will not make any claim against each other in future. After going through the record including supporting evidence I am satisfied that the joint petition is without collusion, parties are residing separately since last more than two years and in future they will not make any claim against each other. In the light of submission and deposition of the parties discussed above the joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed. The marriage tie is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Let a decree be prepared. Parties shall bear their own cost." 4. Learned counsel further pointed out that according to the terms of the divorce with mutual consent the petitioner-husband deposited a Bank Draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court being full and final amount with the condition that wife-opposite party No.2 would receive only when all the cases were disposed of. 5. Opposite Party No.2-informant entered appearance in this criminal miscellaneous petition and filed counter-affidavit stating therein that the mother of the petitioner-husband had also filed Complaint Case No. 2686/2008 in which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 323/348/385 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant-opposite party No.2. her elder sister and two brothers. The Matrimonial Suit filed under Sections 13(la) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was converted into one under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent wherein a Bank Draft of Rs. her elder sister and two brothers. The Matrimonial Suit filed under Sections 13(la) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was converted into one under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent wherein a Bank Draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Family Court being full and final amount, which she was entitled to receive after disposal of all the cases. Pursuant to such terms. mother of the petitioner-husband filed a petition for withdrawal of Complaint Case No. 2686/2008 wherein the accused were acquitted. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that G.R. No. 3538/07 was pending before the S.D.J.M.. Ranchi for supply of police paper to the accused petitioner and his mother being the accused in that case, but they were intentionally avoiding to appear in the court in order to get validity of the Bank Draft expired so that the informant-opposite party NO.2 may be deprived of, her permanent alimony, though she has assured that she was not interested in pursuing the instant G.R. No. 3538/07 pending before the S.D.J.M., Ranchi. 6. I find from the pleadings of the parties that settlement of dispute has already arrived at and the counter affidavit contained that she would have no objection if the entire criminal prosecution of the accused petitioner of this case would be quashed by the order of this Court. Opposite Party No.2 has filed the Xerox copy of the certified copy of the judgment recorded in Complaint Case No. 2686/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby the complainant of the instant case Smt. Rajni Kumari and other accused persons were acquitted for the charge and she has further filed Xerox copy of the petition filed on her behalf in G.R. No. 3538/07 by which she requested the S.D.J.M., Ranchi for disposal of the criminal case instituted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the petition and the counter affidavit, I find that the instant case is fully covered by the decision propounded by the Supreme Court of India in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases 675. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi case (supra), criminal prosecution of the petitioner Mukesh Ranjan in Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 265/07, corresponding to G.R. No. 3538/07, including the order in which cognizance of the offence has been taken are quashed and the accused are acquitted. 8. Accordingly, I.A. (Cr.) No. 2585 of 2009 and I.A. No. 1749 of 2010 are also disposed of.