Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 493 (JHR)

Pir Mohammad Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Anand Kr Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioners, in this application, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 499 of 2013 including the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 wherein it has been stated that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the son of the petitioners. It has been alleged that after two months of the marriage the accused persons started making torture upon the complainant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Further allegation has been levelled that in the month of July, 2012 the accused persons have assaulted the complainant and had snatched away her jewellery and she was also ousted from the matrimonial house. 4. Upon conducting an enquiry by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj on 11.12.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the parents-in-laws of the complainant and in fact the matter had been compromised. It has been submitted that for the acts on the part of the husband of the complainant the petitioners cannot be criminally prosecuted. Learned counsel submits that even as per the solemn affirmation of the complainant demand of dowry has been specifically levelled against her husband and not against the petitioners. It has, therefore, been prayed that in view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners which are general and omnibus the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. It has, therefore, been prayed that in view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners which are general and omnibus the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has disputed the factum of compromise and has submitted that at the time of bail the accused persons have shown their willingness to keep the complainant with them with full dignity and honour and for that purpose the compromise was entered into but subsequently after the grant of bail the accused persons have resiled from their commitment made earlier and at the present moment the opposite party no. 2 is staying at her parent's house. It has also been submitted that in the complaint petition specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners of committing assault on non-fulfillment of dowry. 6. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be the compromise which has been arrived at between the both the sides. However in the compromise petition which has been submitted before the learned trial court, it appears that since the accused persons were ready to keep the complainant-opposite party no. 2 as such no objection was made with respect to the prayer for bail made by the accused persons. The compromise petition, therefore, seems restricted only with respect to the grant of bail and not beyond. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has categorically stated that the petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the compromise and in fact the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house and she started to live in her parents place. Even otherwise from the allegation which has been made in the complaint petition it appears that the petitioners being the parents-in-law of the complainant are said to have participated in the demand of dowry as well as committing assault upon the complainant. 8. In such view of the matter, therefore, the petitioners cannot derive any advantage with respect to the complaint petition which has earlier been instituted by the opposite party no. 2. 8. In such view of the matter, therefore, the petitioners cannot derive any advantage with respect to the complaint petition which has earlier been instituted by the opposite party no. 2. Moreover, as has been discussed above the nature of allegations do suggest prima facie evidence against the petitioners of committing the offence and in such being the position this Court is not inclined to entertain this application which is, accordingly, dismissed.