Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 646 (JHR)

Kanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
ORDER : The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 54 of 2010 including the order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2010 whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act taken by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Hazaribagh was set aside and the court below was directed to proceed with the case under section 498-A, 313 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A Compliant Case No. 54 of 2010 has been filed by the Complainant/opposite party no. 2 stating that she married to the petitioner no. 6 on 16.07.2008. After marriage, when she went to her matrimonial house, she was ill-trerated and abused by calling her ‘Kolh Kolhni Adivasi’ by her husband and in-laws and the demand of dowry was made by them. The opposite party no. 2 thereafter got Rs. 8 lacs from her parents and gave it to her husband. It has further been alleged that earlier also, Complaint Case no. 2702 of 2008 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Sections 498-A, 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iii), (x), (xi), (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the same was withdrawn on the false promise and pressure of the petitioners that they would take her back. However, the petitioner no. 6 backed out from his promise and filed a divorce case being M.T.S No. 84 of 2009. It has further been alleged that she had also made complaint to the State Women Commission, however due to influence of the petitioners, she did not get proper justice from there. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and concocted. The complainant admitted in her S.A. recorded on 23.01.2010 that she has never undergone medical treatment for the alleged assault by her husband and in-laws. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.05.2010 took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant admitted in her S.A. recorded on 23.01.2010 that she has never undergone medical treatment for the alleged assault by her husband and in-laws. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.05.2010 took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed revision being Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2010 before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh who vide order dated 18.08.2010 erroneously directed the court below to take cognizance under Sections 498-A, 313 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that before the State Women Commission, the complainant herself asked for divorce upon which the petitioner no. 6 gave his nod and as such the Commission vide order dated 30.03.2009 directed the parties to file petition for divorce with mutual consent before the competent court. As such, all the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint is only to harass them. The present complaint has been instituted by the opposite party no. 2 only after receiving notice in the divorce case which goes to show that the same has been filed in counterblast of the divorce case filed by the petitioner no. 6. It is also submitted that it is beyond imagination that a rational man can forcibly take an adult woman to a nursing home twice to get her aborted. It is a settled principle of law that such matrimonial complaints implicating all the in-laws sweepingly have to be viewed seriously so as to ensure that such criminal complaints are not used as a tool of harassment and blackmailing. The present criminal proceeding being an abuse of the process of the court is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that the complaint of the opposite party no. 2 prima facie discloses the offences as alleged against the petitioners and as such the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C may not be exercised at this stage. The petitioners have primarily made factual contentions which are required to be considered at an appropriate stage of trial. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have primarily made factual contentions which are required to be considered at an appropriate stage of trial. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are concocted and omnibus in nature without stating the specific role of each petitioner and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh is liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 , wherein it has been held as under:- “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” 6. Further reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 [: 2013(1) JLJR (SC) 115] wherein cognizance for the offences under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the family members of husband including unmarried sister and elder brother of husband was under challenge. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 [: 2013(1) JLJR (SC) 115] wherein cognizance for the offences under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the family members of husband including unmarried sister and elder brother of husband was under challenge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where large number of family members are included in the FIR by causally mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of the offences against them is not justified. 7. In the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs. Ram Gopal Poddar and Another reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673 [: 2011 (1) JLJR (SC) 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. We reiterate that when the criminal court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with an open mind. True it is that that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 CrPC is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass any order in the interests of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 CrPC.” 8. In the case in hand at para 2 and 4 of the complaint, it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 used filthy language against the opposite party no. 2 and tortured her for dowry. So far the petitioner no. 6 is concerned, the allegation of torture, demand of dowry and to get the opposite party no. 2 aborted without her consent has specifically been made in the compliant. Several other incidents have also been stated in the complaint showing that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. So far the petitioner no. 6 is concerned, the allegation of torture, demand of dowry and to get the opposite party no. 2 aborted without her consent has specifically been made in the compliant. Several other incidents have also been stated in the complaint showing that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. Since the facts of the present case are entirely different form the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same would not be applicable in the present case. 9. The next limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present complaint case has been filed in counterblast of the divorce case filed by the petitioner no. 6 against the opposite party no. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the order of the State Women Commission whereby the parties were directed to file mutual divorce petition before the competent court. The contention of the opposite party no. 2 is that the said statement was made by her in pressure, rather she was always ready and willing to live with the petitioner no. 6. Moreover, on perusal of the record, it appears that earlier also, one complaint under section 498-A /120/34 of IPC and 3(1) (iii), (x), (xi), (xv) of the of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 which was withdrawn by her on the false promise of the petitioners that they would take her back. Nonetheless, both the parties have raised factual contentions which need not be examined at this stage. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh while hearing the revision petition observed that as per the complaint, after the marriage of the opposite party no. 2, she was tortured mentally and physically by the petitioners for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by her parents and she was abused by calling her “Adivasi”. The husband of the opposite party no. 2 brought her to Madhuri Nursing Home, Ranchi where she was aborted without her consent and the document to this effect was also filed. The averment raised in the complaint was also supported by the complainant in her S.A. and the inquiry witnesses particularly with respect to demand of dowry, torture and abortion etc. 2 brought her to Madhuri Nursing Home, Ranchi where she was aborted without her consent and the document to this effect was also filed. The averment raised in the complaint was also supported by the complainant in her S.A. and the inquiry witnesses particularly with respect to demand of dowry, torture and abortion etc. Thus, the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh modified the order of cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh by a reasoned order after going through the materials on record which requires no interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the case for quashing of a criminal proceeding, the High Court should not put an appropriate prosecution to an end prematurely unless there are compelling reasons to do so. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2010. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however observed that dismissal of the present petition shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners in the trial before the court below. 13. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.