Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 217 (JHR)

Anita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 3. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 including the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that initially a complaint case was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was stated that on 06.03.2010, marriage of the complainant with the petitioner was solemnised and after few days of the marriage, the petitioner had started quarrelling with her husband and that she was suffering from mental disease. It has also been alleged in the said complaint that the in-laws had also threatened the complainant for implicating him in a false case. It has also been alleged therein that the complainant was assaulted by his in- laws and golden chain was also snatched and domestic appliances of Rs. 50,000/- were forcibly taken away from the house of the complainant. 5. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to which Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 corresponding to G. R. No. 83 of 2012 has been instituted. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a case was instituted by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of I.P.C. being Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011. He has submitted that the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2012 by which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the I.P.C. was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012. During the pendency of the aforesaid Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012, a compromise was entered into between both the sides and a joint compromise petition was also filed on 10.09.2012. He has further submitted that when the anticipatory bail application was pending before the court below, a joint compromise petition was also filed on 14.08.2012. During the pendency of the aforesaid Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012, a compromise was entered into between both the sides and a joint compromise petition was also filed on 10.09.2012. He has further submitted that when the anticipatory bail application was pending before the court below, a joint compromise petition was also filed on 14.08.2012. He further submits that on 12.09.2012, based on the compromise petition, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011 was quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in fact the complaint which was instituted by opposite party no. 2 is lodged on 21.11.2011 and cognizance was taken on 19.03.2012. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 kept silence when the compromise was entered into in course of proceeding in Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the same is a counter blast to the complaint case instituted by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has submitted that allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the case lodged by the opposite party no. 2, but has admitted this fact that pursuant to the compromise entered into between both the sides, vide order dated 12.09.2012, the complaint case instituted by the petitioner herein being Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011 was quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the documents which had been appended to this application, it appears that the present case being Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 was instituted on 11.01.2012 and after charge-sheet was submitted by the police, cognizance was taken on 19.03.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The compromise petition reveals that the same was filed by both the parties on 10.09.2012 and Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012 which was preferred by the opposite party no. 2 herein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011 was allowed on 12.09.2012. The compromise petition reveals that the same was filed by both the parties on 10.09.2012 and Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012 which was preferred by the opposite party no. 2 herein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011 was allowed on 12.09.2012. It would thus seem that even at the time when the compromise was entered into as also the date on which the quashing application being Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012 was allowed, the opposite party no. 2 was fully aware of the pendency of Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 instituted by him. It further appears that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the opposite party no. 2 to suppress the aforesaid fact with respect to Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 and in order to escape from the criminal liability, during the pendency of Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2012 instituted by the petitioner, he had entered into a compromise and after the application was allowed, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed vide order dated 12.09.2012. He has neither taken any step to bring to the notice of the Court with respect to the pendency of Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 nor has he chosen to appear in this present case in spite of valid service of notice. The acts/action on the part of the opposite party no. 2 thus seems to be ill-motivated and malafide and having been set free from the liability of the criminal case imposed upon him by the petitioner had chosen to keep silent which speaks about his deliberate ill intention. Thus, in such circumstances, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, if allowed to be continued, shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, I do find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Balidih P. S. Case No. 6 of 2012 including the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is ordered to be quashed. Application allowed.