Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 134 (JHR)

Kaushal Kishore v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-30

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
Order Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioner no. 3-Smt. Shanti Devi has died, he may be permitted to delete the name of petitioner no. 3 from the memo of petition. 2. Permission is accorded. 3. Let the name of petitioner no. 3 be deleted from the memo of petition. 4. Now this petition shall confine only with respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely, Dr. Kaushal Kishore and Bhikhari Ram. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 227 of 2010 (G.R. No. 3147 of 2010), instituted under Sections 323/307/498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have compromised the case outside the Court by resolving their matrimonial dispute. 7. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the first information report, is that the opposite party no. 2 having married to the petitioner no. 1 when came to her in laws' place, the father-in-law (petitioner no. 2), mother-in-law and other accused persons started putting forth demand of Rs. Five Lakhs from her and on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was being subjected to torture by the accused persons. Subsequently, when the demand of Rs. Five lakhs was not fulfilled, opposite party no. 2 was driven out of the house and hence she came to her parents' home. After some time, when a sum of Rs. One lakh was given to the petitioner no. 1 (husband of opposite party no. 2), he took her to his place where the accused persons again started demanding money and subjecting her to torture on account of non-fulfillment of said demand. Further, it has been alleged that the other day, the husband of opposite party no. 2 tried to kill her by strangulating her neck and at the same time, the other accused persons cut her vain with a view to kill her. 8. On such accusation, a case was registered as Bariatu P.S. Case No. 227 of 2010 under Sections 323/307/498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323/307/498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Before charge-sheet was submitted, the petitioners had moved to this Court by filing Cr. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323/307/498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Before charge-sheet was submitted, the petitioners had moved to this Court by filing Cr. M.P. No. 227 of 2011 for quashing of the first information report, which was dismissed. After submission of charge-sheet, when cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken, the accused persons were put on trial. 9. Meanwhile, the parties got their matrimonial dispute settled whereby petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 agreed to have divorce on mutual consent. 10. According to learned counsel for the parties, an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed before the competent court which is pending. In such situation, prayer has been made by way of instant application to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 11. It was pointed out that apart from the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is also there but keeping in view the nature of injury as abrasion reflecting from the injury report, no offence is made out under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. So far as the allegation of making an attempt to kill the opposite party no. 2 by strangulating her neck is concerned, that appears to be super-addition as it is never the case of the prosecution that on account of intervention of others, the opposite party no. 2 was saved from being killed and, therefore, this can be said that in order to make the allegation more graver, this allegation has been levelled. 12. In the facts and circumstances, stated above, as well as keeping in view the injury report, which has been annexed with the application, I do find that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out. 13. So far as the matrimonial dispute is concerned, it has been accepted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 that the parties have resolved it and even a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of the parties. 14. Before coming to conclusion, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 that the parties have resolved it and even a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of the parties. 14. Before coming to conclusion, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another { (2003) 4 SCC 675 }, wherein it has been observed as hereinunder:- “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and Anr. {(2011) 4 J.L.J.R. (SC) 421} has held as under :- “Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuation of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below.” 16. In that view of the matter, there is no difficulty in accepting the compromise petition even though it is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. So far the matter relating to mutual divorce is concerned, it is pending. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that it would be disposed of at the earliest. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 227 of 2010 (G.R. No. 3147 of 2010), instituted under Sections 323/307/498A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners, is hereby quashed. 18. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed.