Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 144 (JHR)

Mumtaz Mallick v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-18

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010, including the order dated 10.12.2010 as well as order dated 11.1.2011, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 341, 323, 498(A), 313/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 whereas petitioner no. 2 is mother in law. It has further been submitted that matter has been compromised between the parties but subsequently opposite party no. 2 has resiled from the compromise, which cannot be permitted at this stage. It has also been submitted that in view of the compromise in Complaint Case No. C-717/13, the accused persons were acquitted. Learned counsel submits that in fact on account of adamant attitude of the opposite party no. 2, even after compromise, which was effected in Mediation Centre, she refused to stay with the petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel further submits that since the matter has already been compromised based on terms and conditions, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that although a compromise was effected, but the same was under threat and coercion. It has been submitted that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by the petitioner no. 1, which was, however, dismissed by the court below. It has further been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was assaulted brutally by the petitioner no. 1 when she resided in the house of petitioner no. 1 and in view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR , the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears that initially a compromise was effected between the parties at the Mediation Centre, Chatra on certain terms and conditions, which also included Simaria P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010 and complaint case no 717/2013. Pursuant to the said compromise, Complaint Case No. 717/2013 was disposed of. Present case has been instituted by the wife of petitioner no. 5. It appears that initially a compromise was effected between the parties at the Mediation Centre, Chatra on certain terms and conditions, which also included Simaria P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010 and complaint case no 717/2013. Pursuant to the said compromise, Complaint Case No. 717/2013 was disposed of. Present case has been instituted by the wife of petitioner no. 1 levelling allegation of torture and demand of dowry against the petitioners. The compromise, which was effected at the Mediation Centre, Chatra subsequently seems to have failed and the parties have returned back to the inimical terms which were existing prior to getting the matter settled. In view of the pleadings, which have been submitted by the parties, the compromise, which was effected, cannot be taken into consideration and the case has to be decided on merits. 6. So far as the FIR is concerned, there appears to be specific allegation against the petitioners of carrying out miscarriage of opposite party no. 2 apart from assaulting and torturing the opposite party no. 2 on account of non fulfilment of demand of dowry. Such allegations do constitute an offence under sections 498A and 313 of the IPC as well as under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in fact after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken on 10.12.2010. 7. In the facts and circumstances, enumerated above, there is no reason to cause any interference in the criminal proceedings which have been instituted against the petitioners and therefore having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.