Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1525 (JHR)

M. Naveen Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-08

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Order : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) the petitioner has questioned the continuance of the entire criminal proceeding and also the legality of order dated 20.08.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.08 of 2003 arising out of C1/Case No.83 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and a direction has been given to issue summons to the petitioner. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition, in short, is that the daughter of the complainant was married with the petitioner on 09.02.1998 under the Special Marriage Act without the consent of the complainant and her father but almost after six months of marriage, the petitioner as well as other accused persons started demanding dowry and due to nonfulfillment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture at the hands of the accused persons. Whereafter her daughter was treated in various hospitals at Cuttack, Varanasi, Lucknow and she is still admitted in T.M.H., Jamshedpur. It is also alleged that the complainant anyhow came to know that the petitioner has solemnized his another marriage with one Tanu Kumari and thereafter this complaint case was filed. 3. It appears from the record that the complaint case was referred to the police station and thereafter First Information Report was lodged and after investigation the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner under Sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. The court finding strong prima facie case against the petitioner, took cognizance of the offence and directed to issue summons to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order taking cognizance as perverse and bad in law submitted that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceeding as the petitioner as well as the daughter of the complainant has already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in Matrimonial Suit No.436 of 2001 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and the marriage has already been dissolved by the order dated 11.06.2002. It was also submitted that the present case has been lodged by the motherinlaw of the petitioner and it is a sheer wastage of valuable court’s time. It was also submitted that the present case has been lodged by the motherinlaw of the petitioner and it is a sheer wastage of valuable court’s time. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of Principal Judge, Family Court dated 11.06.2002 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant is enclosed as Annexure-3 with this petition and after the said order of dissolution of marriage, the present case has been filed with ulterior motive to harass this petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 while refuting the submissions, contended that the court below after considering the strong prima facie case and materials available on record, took cognizance of the offence and this Court in view of the principle settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code, has no jurisdiction to interfere in the order impugned and the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at the initial stage. 6. Following the ratio decided in the case B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.; (2003) 4 SCC 675 and considering the fact that a mutual decree for divorce has already been granted by a competent court of law by order dated 11.06.2002 and the marriage has been dissolved in such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction, filing of this F.I.R. in the year 2003 much after grant of divorce, no useful purpose would be served in continuing criminal prosecution against the petitioner. In a case Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.; (1988) 1 SCC 692 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The First Information Report lodged against the petitioner being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.08 of 2003 arising out of C1/ Case No.83 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.177 of 2003 pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and the order taking cognizance dated 20.08.2003, are, hereby, quashed.