Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 840 (JHR)

Manjit Singh @ Badal Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-06

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
ORDER Prashant Kumar, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 2143 of 2006, whereby he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498 (A) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is submitted by Sri Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that part of impugned order by which cognizance under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken is illegal because as per Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act 4 of 1976 no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 4 without previous sanction of the State Government. It is further submitted that petitioner filed a divorce suit prior to lodging of first information report, thus, in view of judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) JCR 183 (Jhr.) impugned order by which cognizance under Section 498 (A) of the I.P.C. was taken illegal. 3. On the other hand, Sri M.B. Lal, learned Additional P.P. for the State and Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 fairly stated that in view of Bihar Amendment no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act without previous sanction of State Government. They, however, submitted that pendency of divorce suit is no ground for quashing a criminal case. It is submitted that in the instant case from no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that informant lodged present case with intention to take revenge from the petitioner, because on the date of lodging of first information report informant was not knowing that any matrimonial suit is pending against her. It is submitted that judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts of this case. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been amended by Bihar Act 4 of 1976, which becomes enforceable w.e.f. 20.01.1976. 5. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Act 4 of 1976 runs as follows:-- 4. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been amended by Bihar Act 4 of 1976, which becomes enforceable w.e.f. 20.01.1976. 5. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Act 4 of 1976 runs as follows:-- 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person, after the commencement of this Act, demands directly or Indirectly from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees: Provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government, may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf.--Bihar Act 4 of 1976, Section 3 (w.e.f. 20-1-1976). 6. Thus, as per the proviso to the aforesaid Bihar Amendment Act no Court can take cognizance of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act without previous sanction of State Government. It manifest from impugned order that on the date of impugned order sanction of the State Government has not been produced. Under the aforesaid circumstance, part of the impugned order by which cognizance under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against petitioner is illegal. 7. Now coming to the next submission, it is worth mentioning that the divorce suit bearing Title Matrimonial Suit No. 275 of 2006 was filed on 10.07.2006. It appears that on 11.07.2006, the said matrimonial suit was admitted and notice issued. The order sheet further reveals that requisition for issuance of notice was sent to Nazarat on 19.07.2006. It is worth mentioning that the informant filed written report in Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) police station on 10.07.2006 and on the basis of same first information report lodged on 11.07.2006. Thus, on the date of filing of written report and as well as on the date of lodging of F.I.R., the informant was not knowing that a matrimonial suit for divorce was pending against her. Under the said circumstance, it cannot be held that informant lodged F.I.R with a view to take revenge from the petitioner as he filed a divorce suit against her. From perusal of judgment reported in 2006 (1) JCR 183 (Jhr.). Under the said circumstance, it cannot be held that informant lodged F.I.R with a view to take revenge from the petitioner as he filed a divorce suit against her. From perusal of judgment reported in 2006 (1) JCR 183 (Jhr.). I find that facts of that case is different from this case. In that case notice of divorce case had already been served upon the complainant. In the instant case as noticed above informant had no knowledge about the divorce case. Thus, ratio of aforesaid decision has no application in this case. In my view only because a matrimonial suit is pending, it cannot be held that F.I.R lodged with mala fide intention. As noticed above, in the instant case, on the date of filing of written report even the notice in matrimonial case has not been issued by the competent Court. Under the said circumstance, it cannot be held that the informant filed the criminal case against petitioner for taking revenge as he filed divorce suit. 8. In view of discussions made above, this application is partly allowed and part of the order, by which the Court below took cognizance under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed. However, I find no illegality and/or irregularity with the part of impugned order, by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C., thus, part of the application, by which petitioner prayed for quashing of aforesaid part of impugned order, is hereby dismissed. Application partly allowed. Application allowed.