Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1311 (JHR)

Mehar Bano @ Tarannum Ara v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-31

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C/1 Case No. 98 of 2015 including the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute itself is purely civil in nature and only to falsely implicate the petitioner in criminal prosecution allegation has been made against the petitioner and other accused persons to snatch the gold chain of the informant and committing assault upon him. It has been stated that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was staying in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia along with her husband for which learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a certificate issued by the petitioner and signed in presence of Vice Consul of the Indian Embassy. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation reveals that the petitioner had subsequently arrived at the place of occurrence and had forced the informant along with the other inside the house. It has been stated that such act cannot be termed as criminal offence and, therefore, in such circumstance, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that on account of the dispute regarding the wakf property petitioner along with the other accused persons had assaulted the informant. It has been stated that the plea of alibi which has been raised by the petitioner can only be decided in course of trial as in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. PC it would be pre-mature to come to a conclusion regarding the same. Learned counsel further submits that in the complaint petition there is specific allegation against the petitioner of taking part in the assault upon the informant and such being the position, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. PC it would be pre-mature to come to a conclusion regarding the same. Learned counsel further submits that in the complaint petition there is specific allegation against the petitioner of taking part in the assault upon the informant and such being the position, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears from the complaint petition that what had come to the fore was a dispute between both the sides who are related with each other and the bone of contention seems to be the wakf property which was alleged by the complainant to have been misused or was on the verge of being misused by the petitioner and the other accused persons. After conducting an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 18.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The only basis for taking of cognizance and summoning the petitioner to face the trial is an alleged incident which had taken place on 11.01.2015. So far as the dispute between the parties regarding wakf property is concerned, the learned Court below had come to the conclusion that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the same can only be resolved by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court. Now it is to be seen as to whether on 11.01.2015 the role which has been alleged to have been played by the petitioner can attract any offence under the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition at Paragraph-11 it has been mentioned that threat and abuse was given to the complainant by the accused Nos. 2 to 5 and thereafter, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 had caught hold of the complainant and mercilessly beaten him by fists and slaps. It was also alleged therein that the complainant's gold chain worth Rs. 50,000/- was snatched away by accused No. 1. 6. Perusal of the allegation levelled on 11.01.2015 does not make mention about the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No. 7 in the complaint petition. In the solemn affirmation also what has been attributed to the petitioner is the fact that at the time of assault this petitioner along with her two sisters had forced the complainant to go inside the house. In the solemn affirmation also what has been attributed to the petitioner is the fact that at the time of assault this petitioner along with her two sisters had forced the complainant to go inside the house. It must be noted herein that both the parties are closely related to each other and the act of the petitioner cannot be termed as a hostile act as the petitioner had merely along with others had forced the complainant to go inside. This may have been intended by the petitioner to pacify the fight which had erupted between both sides. Merely pushing the complainant to his room along with his other sisters can in no way said to constitute a criminal offence. The incident of 11.01.2015 seems to have been included only for giving a colour of criminality to the entire allegation made in the complaint petition which attracts a civil dispute and which has been considered by the learned Magistrate. 7. The plea of alibi which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage. However, considering the fact that the petitioner virtually is being hauled up in a criminal proceeding for a negligible role of her as has been detected in the earlier paragraphs the continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court. I must hasten to add herein that both the parties were on inimical term and it is quite natural for the complainant to have implicated the entire family members of Md. Hafizullah who was managing the wakf property and on such score also perhaps the petitioners have been implicated though not attributing any specific role against her. 8. As a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 98 of 2015 including the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. 9. This application stands allowed. 10. Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed of. Application allowed.