Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 661 (JHR)

Shamim Ahmed Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2014-06-26

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by Sri P.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in G.R. Case No.1297 of 2011, whereby on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 379/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioners are the husband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the informant. It is alleged that the informant was married to the petitioner Shamim Ahmed Khan at Bokaro on 17.10.2008. There is allegation of demand of car before the marriage also, but it is alleged that after the marriage, she was taken to her matrimonial home at Bhilai in the state of Chattisgarh and she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. After 14 days of marriage, the husband went to Saudi Arebia for earing the livelihood. But there is allegation against the husband also of subjecting the informant to cruelty even during those fourteen days. In the FIR, there are specific allegations against all the named accused persons of subjecting the informant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and it is alleged that on the pressure of in-laws, the father of the informant arranged two lakhs rupees as part payment of the vehicle and for taking the said money, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law named in the FIR came to Bokaro and there also they subjected the informant to cruelty and torture even at her parents' place. Thereafter, again she was taken her back to matrimonial home and was subjected to the same fate for demand of more money on different counts. It also appears from the FIR that the matter was also reported to the police at Bhilai, but it is apparent that no police case was instituted in the State of Chhatisgarh. The husband of the informant returned back from Saudi Arbeia in the year 2011 and he again joined the other co-accused persons in subjecting the informant to cruelty and torture, until she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The husband of the informant returned back from Saudi Arbeia in the year 2011 and he again joined the other co-accused persons in subjecting the informant to cruelty and torture, until she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. With these allegations, the FIR was lodged at Bokaro Steel City, on the basis of which, Sector IV P.S. Case No.147 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1297 of 2011 was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that after investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and on the basis of the materials in the case diary, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The informant had also given an information before the police at Bhilai. Learned counsel has submitted that the accused petitioners including the brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and the ailing mother-in-law have been falsely implicated in this case only with the omnibus allegations and accordingly, it is a fit case in which the criminal proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that there are specific allegations against all the accused persons and the part of the occurrence had taken place in the State of Jharkhand also, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. It is pointed out from the document brought on record by the petitioners themselves, that no separate case was instituted at Bhilai. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there are specific allegations against all the accused persons including the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of subjecting the informant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. The part of the occurrence has taken place at the Bokaro also. The police has investigated the case and has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and on the basis of the materials on record, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. 7. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. The I.A. also stands disposed of.