Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 168 (JHR)

Ravi Shankar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
JUDGMENT :- Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1-271/2012 including the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. It appears that earlier a complaint case was instituted being Complaint Case No. C-1/829 of 2011 against the petitioner in which it was stated that the marriage of the opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.11.2010 and after a few days there was a demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which, the opposite party No. 2 was tortured. 4. It appears that thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties and pursuant to which the complainant went to her matrimonial home and started living there, but after a few months as per the allegation made by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, she was once again tortured and ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home, which led to her filing a First Information Report (FIR) being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011. 5. After investigation police submitted final form in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 2469 of 2011 and on being noticed O.P. No. 2 filed a protest-cum-complaint petition being Complaint Case No.C/1-271/2012. On the protest-cum-complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate and vide order dated 24.4.2012 cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire complaint case being Complaint Case No. C/1-271/2012, which is under challenge in the present application, does not speak of any specific allegation against the petitioner. Moreover he has submitted that no specific date of occurrence has been mentioned and the allegations which has been levelled in the complaint petition is exactly same and similar as that made in Complaint Case No.C/1-829/2011. He therefore submits that continuation of the criminal proceeding on the subsequent complaint will be an abuse of process of law. 7. Moreover he has submitted that no specific date of occurrence has been mentioned and the allegations which has been levelled in the complaint petition is exactly same and similar as that made in Complaint Case No.C/1-829/2011. He therefore submits that continuation of the criminal proceeding on the subsequent complaint will be an abuse of process of law. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand has submitted that after the first complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 2, a compromise was entered into and on the undertaking given by the accused persons that she will be kept with full dignity and honour, she started living with the accused persons, but after a few months, the opposite party No. 2 was once again tortured and ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home and therefore, the allegations in the second complaint is not the same to that which has been narrated in the first complaint. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I do find that the second complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.C/1-271/2012 relates to the incident which had happened after a compromise was entered into between the opposite party No. 2 and the accused persons after initiation of the first complaint. There has been a specific allegation made in Complaint Case No.C/1-271/2012 that on the assurance of the accused persons, the opposite party started living in the matrimonial home, but the said assurance was short lived and after a few months she was tortured and driven out from her matrimonial home. Therefore it cannot be said that the contents of the second complaint is similar to that of the earlier complaint. Accordingly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the complaints have arisen out of same occurrence is devoid of merit. 9. In view of the discussions made herein above, I find no merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, since both the cases being Complaint Case No.C/1-829/2011 and the Complaint Case No.C/1-271/2012 are pending before the same Court, it is expected that both the cases will be tried together. I.A. No. 3287 of 2014 11. In view of the fact that Cr. M.P. No. 2161 of 2013 has already been disposed of, this I.A. has become infructuous. 10. However, since both the cases being Complaint Case No.C/1-829/2011 and the Complaint Case No.C/1-271/2012 are pending before the same Court, it is expected that both the cases will be tried together. I.A. No. 3287 of 2014 11. In view of the fact that Cr. M.P. No. 2161 of 2013 has already been disposed of, this I.A. has become infructuous. Accordingly, this I.A. is dismissed as being infructuous.