Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1060 (JHR)

Prashant Jha @ Prashant v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-15

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sector-IV (Chas) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 330 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1019 of 2012 including the order dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro whereby the cognizance of the offences under Sections 498(A/323/34 of the I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the complaint, is that the daughter of the complainant/informant namely Dipti Jha (victim) was married to accused no. 1 of the complaint namely Shashank Jha on 31.05.2002 and at the time of negotiation of marriage, the complainant and witness no. 3 of the said complaint had specifically asked regarding the health of Shashank Jha whereupon the accused persons had assured them about his good health. At the time of marriage, Rs. 7,50,000/- was given to the accused persons, out of which Rs. 3,00,000/-each was deposited in the fixed deposit account of accused Shashank Jha and the victim and the rest was kept by the accused no. 2- B.K. Jha (father of the accused no.1). It has been alleged that after the marriage, the victim came to know that her husband was a drug addict and was in relationship with another girl. Further, the accused nos. 2 and 3 tortured her for pressurizing the complainant to transfer his house situated at Anisabad, Patna in the name of the victim. It has further been alleged that the complainant gave Rs. 2,40,000/- to the victim after the marriage but the said amount was taken by the accused persons and they misappropriated it for their own use. On 12.12.2009, the victim was abused and assaulted by her husband and finally she was forced to leave the house on the pretext that if she did not leave the house, he would commit suicide. When the victim informed the police station regarding this incident, her husband gave written undertaking before the police that he would keep the victim in good environment. On 16.01.2010, her husband on the instigation of his parents, assaulted the victim due to which she went to her parental home. It has further been stated in the complaint that after the above said occurrence, accused no. On 16.01.2010, her husband on the instigation of his parents, assaulted the victim due to which she went to her parental home. It has further been stated in the complaint that after the above said occurrence, accused no. 1 (husband of the victim) was treated at RINPAS, Ranchi to get rid of drug addiction. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no concern with the family affairs of the victim and her husband (the accused no. 1), rather they are living separately from them. It is further submitted that the police, during investigation did not find iota of evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. However, the court below while totally ignoring the materials brought in the case diary took cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners in a mechanical manner. It is further submitted that the High Court has power to quash a criminal proceeding if it comes to a conclusion that continuance of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to an abuse of the process of court. It is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, may be quashed by this court by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and K. Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 . 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the complaint sufficiently discloses the alleged offences against the petitioners and as such the present proceeding need not be quashed in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. During investigation, the police has found sufficient materials against the petitioners. It is further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners may be agitated before the court below at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are living separately and have no relation with the accused no. 1 and the victim. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are living separately and have no relation with the accused no. 1 and the victim. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the present case at the instance of the opposite party no. 2 with a malafide intention in order to wreck vengeance. 7. In the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.” 8. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra.), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “15. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, Respondent 2 complainant has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant's ex-husband. The facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-laws' house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as to how they could be implicated in the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra, including his parents. 18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [ (2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.” 9. In the case of K. Subba Rao (supra.) it has been held as under:- “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Rajv. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536].” 10. This Court, vide order dated 21.01.2019 directed the learned A.P.P. to procure the case diary and in compliance of the same, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand stating that in para 5 of the case diary the restatement of the informant has been recorded wherein it has been alleged that the petitioners had instigated the accused no. 1 (husband of the victim) to withdraw the matrimonial relationship so as to compel the complainant to fulfill their demand and to transfer his house in favour of the parents of the accused no. 1. In para 6 of the case diary, the mother of the victim also reiterated the same allegations against the petitioners. Further in para 7 of the case diary, the statement of the victim has been recorded wherein she has stated that on the instigation of the petitioners, she was tortured by her husband and was forced to ask for an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- from her father as additional dowry. She was also being compelled to get her father’s house at Anisabad, Patna transferred in her name and on denial, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. Learned A.P.P. while relying on paragraphs 39 and 40 of the case diary submits that the statements of the independent witnesses Vinodanand Jha and Devendra Jha have been recorded who have also supported the allegations levelled by the opposite party no. 2 disclosing the role of the petitioners in instigating the husband of the victim to make demand of dowry from the opposite party no.2. 11. The entire material collected by the police during the investigation suggest that there is general allegation against the petitioners that they instigated the accused- Shashank Jha to make demand of dowry. No specific instance has been narrated either by the opposite party no.2 or the aforesaid witnesses as to in what manner the petitioners instigated the accused no. 1. The petitioners are living in different cities of India and they have no concern with the family affairs of accused no. 1 and his wife. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have been roped in the present case without any prima facie material against them. 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sector-IV (Chas) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 330 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1019 of 2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, so far as the same relates to the petitioners, is hereby quashed. 13. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.