Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 382 (JHR)

Sanjeev Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER : By the Court. - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though this application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 07.10.2013 under which prayer for discharge has been rejected on behalf of the petitioners-husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, but he will not be pressing this application so far the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. 2. In view of the submission, let the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 be deleted from the memo of petition. 3. Consequently, this petition shall confine only with respect to petitioner No.3, namely, Rudra Kali Devi @ Rudra Kali Jha. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.3, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2. 5. This application is directed against the order dated 07.10.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.1104 of 2011 by Shri S.D. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner No.3 for discharge, was rejected. 6. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner No.3 submits that a complaint case was lodged, alleging therein that when marriage got fixed in between the complainant and Sanjeev Kumar Jha, father-in-law demanded of Rs.5 Lac. That apart, other household articles and gold ornaments were also demanded. After the complainant started living in her matrimonial home, she was being taunted by her husband that she has not brought sufficient dowry. The husband went on insisting to the complainant to ask for money from her father so that they may purchase a Maruti Alto Car. Thereafter, when the husband started living at Delhi, she went there and lived with him for some time. During that period also, the husband coerced her to convey her parents for giving Maruti Alto Car. For some time, the complainant also stayed with the father-in-law and the mother-in-law (petitioner) at Dharbhanga, Bihar. Thereafter, she came back to Ranchi and started living at Ranchi. When the husband returned back from Delhi, he started living with her at Ranchi. During which period, he again started putting forth pressure upon her to bring Maruti Alto Car from her father's house. 7. Further case is that when the father of the complainant contacted his Samdhi for appraising him about the illegal demand of his son, father-in-law of the complainant asked him to fulfill the demand as aforesaid. 8. During which period, he again started putting forth pressure upon her to bring Maruti Alto Car from her father's house. 7. Further case is that when the father of the complainant contacted his Samdhi for appraising him about the illegal demand of his son, father-in-law of the complainant asked him to fulfill the demand as aforesaid. 8. Further allegation is that when the parents of her husband visited Ranchi, they kept on insisting upon their son to get the demand fulfilled and at one point of time, parents of her husband had told the father of the complainant that unless they would fulfill their demand, his daughter would not lead a peaceful marital life 9. On such allegation, the complaint case was lodged. Upon holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence was taken. In due course, application for discharge was filed. That application was rejected vide order dated 07.10.2013, which is under challenge. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.3 submits that there has been no specific allegation against the petitioner No.3-mother-in-law of putting forth demand of dowry or subjecting the complainant to torture, though at one occasion reference of demand has come so far as this petitioner is concerned but again it is not specific as it has been said that parents of her husband asked the father of the complainant to fulfill the demand which would not be sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty and, therefore, she should have been discharged from the case, but the court below, by not discharging her from the case, has committed illegality. 11. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that though there has been no specific allegation in the complaint against the petitioner No.3 of putting forth demand, but the complainant, in her cross-examination under Section 244 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated about the demand being made not only by the husband but also by the father-in-law and mother-in-law and that apart allegations are there in paragraph 27 of the complaint petition, and, thereby, the court has rightly rejected the prayer for discharge. 12. 12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking to the statement made in the complaint petition and also other statements, I do find that specific allegation regarding demand, seems to be there against the husband and also against father-in-law, but so far this petitioner-mother-in-law is concerned, allegation of demand can be said to be a passing reference as in one of the paragraphs, it has been stated that “on hearing that the parents of the accused No.1 speaking in one voice told the father of the complainant that unless he fulfilled their demand his daughter would not lead a peaceful marital life with their son”. Except this allegation, no specific allegation seems to be there at any other place, except in cross-examination of the evidence led under Section 244 Cr.P.C.. Perhaps the complainant in her cross examination may have referred that allegation which is there in paragraph-27, but again it does not appear to be specific. 13. Under the circumstances, I do find that sufficient materials are not there to put the petitioner No.3 on trial. 14. Accordingly, order dated 07.10.2013 under which prayer for discharge of the petitioner-Rudra Kali Devi @ Rudra Kali Jha, was rejected is, hereby, set aside and the petitioner No.3-Rudra Kali Devi @ Rudra Kali Jha is discharged from the case. 15. Hence, this application stands allowed so far petitioner No.3-Rudra Kali Devi @ Rudra Kali Jha is concerned. Application allowed.