Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Sabina @ Sasbina Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 3212 of 2013, including the order dated 11.02.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioner. Pursuant to the I.A. No. 5015 of 2017, having been allowed by this Court, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.12.2016, by virtue of which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is sister-in-law of the complainant and there is no iota of allegation against the petitioner of her having committed an offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that vague and general allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and considering the similar allegation, one of the accused, who was initially arrayed in the complaint petition, has not been sent up for trial. Learned counsel further submits that even on the question of territorial jurisdiction, the case itself is not made out. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have stated that some occurrence had taken place in the district of Dhanbad and, therefore, the court at Dhanbad does have jurisdiction to try the case. It has been stated that the petitioner has been implicated along with the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as another sister-in-law and there are allegation in the complaint petition as well as in the solemn affirmation of the complainant, which would suggest that the complainant was subjected to mental and physical torture. It has also been stated that specific allegation has been levelled that there was demand of Rs. 70,000/- and washing machine from the father of the complainant. 5. It appears that initially the complaint case was instituted against six accused persons, which included parents of the husband and three sister-in-laws of the complainant. It has also been stated that specific allegation has been levelled that there was demand of Rs. 70,000/- and washing machine from the father of the complainant. 5. It appears that initially the complaint case was instituted against six accused persons, which included parents of the husband and three sister-in-laws of the complainant. However, cognizance has been taken by the court below under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and five persons have been sent up for trial excluding accused No. 5- Haseena @ Guria. It further appears that accused No. 5 namely, Haseena @ Guria, who happens to be sister-in-law of the complainant had not been sent up for trial. 6. From perusal of the complaint, it reveals that vague and general allegations have been levelled and so far as this petitioner is concerned, she being the sister-in-law, had not taken any part with respect to mental and physical torture meted upon the complainant and in solemn affirmation also, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. 7. The complaint petition as well as statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, reveals that out of vengeance on the family members of the husband of the complainant, the petitioner has been made accused, though specific allegation has not been attributed against the petitioner. The learned cognizance taking court has not considered the fact that the petitioner was on similar footing to that of another sister-in-law namely, Haseena @ Guria, who was not sent up for trial. 8. Since, prima facie, there does not appear to be any allegation against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, continuance of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of court and accordingly, it warrants to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 3212 of 2013, including the order dated 11.02.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioner, is hereby, quashed and set aside, so far as this petitioner is concerned. 10. 10. In view of the fact that entire criminal proceeding has been quashed, the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been issued has become redundant. 11. It be noted that question of territorial jurisdiction has not been gone into in view of absence of any allegation against the petitioner and the same is left open. 12. This application stands disposed of.