Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 771 (JHR)

Sangeeta Devi @ Puttu Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2021-09-20

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2021
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party-State. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 4. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2016 passed in Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby, cognizance under Sections 406, 498(A), 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners. 5. Opposite party no. 2 has filed Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioners and other on 11.03.2015 stating therein that the father of the complainant is the employee of BCCL, Dhanbad and the complainant/opposite party no. 2 married with co-accused Suraj Kumar according to Hindu Rights and Customs on 23.05.2014 and after marriage she came to matrimonial home. It was also stated that the father of the complainant gave Rs.3 Lakhs through bank account to petitioner no. 4 towards marriage expenditure and Rs. 80,000/- was given to co-accused Suraj Kumar for purchasing motorcycle as gift and golden ornaments and other articles were also given by the father of the complainant. It was further stated that petitioner no. 2 Raju Paswan has taken Rs. 5 Lakhs from the father of the complainant on the statement that the same has been demanded by the petitioners as marriage expenditure. By way of playing fraud with the father of the complainant, petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 6 told that co-accused Suraj Kumar is working as T.T.I. at Nagpur and they also showed forged identity card of T.T.I. It was further stated that one month after marriage, she came to know that the co-accused Suraj Kumar is not working in the Railway department as T.T.I. and she told this fact to the accused persons who accepted the said facts and they threatened to kill if she will disclose to anyone. It was further stated that on 30.06.2014, all accused person demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs for constructing upper floor of the building and on refusal she was subjected to cruelty. It was also stated that due to ill treatment by the petitioners, the complainant became ill and on information her father came on 20.08.2014 and requested to treat the complainant to a doctor but the petitioners refused to do so and demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs on 20.08.2014. The father of the complainant took her and came at Dhanbad for her treatment. It was further stated that on 22.02.2015, the accused came at parental house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 4 Lakhs and on refusal they abused and assaulted her father. 6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners took the Court to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and by way of placing that he submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, there are omnibus allegations against them and no case under the aforesaid Sections, on which cognizance has been taken, is made out. He further submits that the husband of opposite party no. 2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna and the judgment was delivered in that case on 19.12.2015 directing to resume the conjugal life. He also submits that the complaint petition was filed by opposite party no. 2 on 11.03.2015 and the said complaint case was instituted prior to passing of the judgment dated 19.12.2015 in relation to petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He further submits that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are married sister of the husband of opposite party no. 2 and their marriage was performed in the year 1996, 2002 and 2005 respectively and they are leaving separately at their matrimonial home and they have nothing to do with the allegation made in the complaint case. Petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law of the husband of opposite party no. 2. Petitioner nos. 4 and 6 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 respectively. He also submits that the concerned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 20.02.2016, which is also a non-speaking order and the same has been passed without applying judicial mind. 2 is brother-in-law of the husband of opposite party no. 2. Petitioner nos. 4 and 6 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 respectively. He also submits that the concerned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 20.02.2016, which is also a non-speaking order and the same has been passed without applying judicial mind. On the point of general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 . 7. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 35 and 37 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “27. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal comprehensively examined the legal position. The Court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the Court are reproduced in SCC Para-24 of the said judgment as under: (SCC p. 10) “24. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 28. We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants. 29. Admittedly, Appellant 1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, Appellant 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. Similarly, Appellant 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law. xxx xxx xxx 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. xxx xxx xxx 37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.” 8. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.” 8. On the same point, learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 . 9. Paragraphs 14, 15, 20, 21 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “14. On a perusal of the complaint and other materials on record as also analysis of the arguments advanced by the contesting parties in the light of the settled principles of law reflected in a catena of decisions, it is apparent that the High Court has not applied its mind to the question as to whether the case was fit to be quashed against the appellants and has merely disposed of the petition granting liberty to the appellants to move the trial court and raise contentions on the ground as to whether it has territorial jurisdiction to continue with the trial in the light of the averment that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad and the entire incident even as per the FIR had taken place at Faridabad. 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. xxx xxx xxx 20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, Para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, Para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.” The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. xxx xxx xxx 28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” 10. On the point of cognizance, learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505 . 11. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “19. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” 10. On the point of cognizance, learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505 . 11. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “19. In the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima-facie case as against Respondents 2 to 7 and the role played by them in the capacity of Managing Director, Company Secretary or Directors which is sine qua non for initiating criminal action against them. Recently, in Thermax Ltd. vs. K.M. Johny while dealing with a similar case, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 429, Paras 38 and 39) “38. Though Respondent 1 has roped all the appellants in a criminal case without their specific role or participation in the alleged offence with the sole purpose of settling his dispute with the appellant Company by initiating the criminal prosecution, it is pointed out that Appellants 2 to 8 are the ex-Chairperson, ex-Directors and senior managerial personnel of Appellant 1 Company, who do not have any personal role in the allegations and claims of Respondent 1. There is also no specific allegation with regard to their role. 39. Apart from the fact that the complaint lacks necessary ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC, it is to be noted that the concept of ‘vicarious liability’ is unknown to criminal law. As observed earlier, there is no specific allegation made against any person but the members of the Board and senior executives are joined as the persons looking after the management and business of the appellant Company.” 12. By way of relying these judgments, learned Senior Counsel submits that on the omnibus allegations on the persons, who are not residing with the complainant, they have been arrayed as accused in the criminal proceeding. 13. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 took the Court to different paragraphs of the complaint petition and submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the trial court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that so far as the judgments relied by Mr. 13. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 took the Court to different paragraphs of the complaint petition and submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the trial court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that so far as the judgments relied by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is concerned, those judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as there are allegations against the petitioners in the complaint petition. By way of referring paragraph 7 of the I.A. No. 7325 of 2017, which has been filed by opposite party no. 2 for vacating the stay, Mr. Sahani submits that so far as the husband of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, he has moved separate Cr. M.P. No. 811 of 2016 for quashing entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance as against him, which has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2016 and the same was also challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 4509 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the complaint petition and solemn affirmation of opposite party no. 2. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it appears that only omnibus allegations have been made against them by opposite party no. 2 in her solemn affirmation. There are allegations of beating and torturing opposite party no. 2 by her husband. So far as petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are concerned, they are married sisters of the husband of opposite party no. 2 and their marriage was performed in the year 1996, 2002 and 2005 respectively and they are residing at other places, which has been disclosed in paragraph 12 of the petition. Petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law of the husband of opposite party no. 2. The complaint petition has been filed in the year 2015. These facts have not been denied by opposite party no. 2. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are residing at another place and that has been considered in paragraph 29 of the judgment passed in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), which has been quoted above. 2. The complaint petition has been filed in the year 2015. These facts have not been denied by opposite party no. 2. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are residing at another place and that has been considered in paragraph 29 of the judgment passed in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), which has been quoted above. Identical fact in the present case has been emerged. 15. Merely by making a general allegation that the petitioners were involved in torturing opposite party no. 2 are amounts to abuse of process of law and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the judgment passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), which has been quoted above. It is an admitted fact that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are married sisters of the husband of opposite party no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the husband of opposite party no. 2. The allegations against mother-in-law and father-in-law are also omnibus in nature. The case of husband of opposite party no. 2 for quashing entire criminal proceeding has already been rejected by this Court and that will be the subject matter of the trial. So far as the petitioners are concerned, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2016 passed in Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is hereby quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned. 17. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. 18. Interim order dated 07.04.2016 stands vacated. 19. Consequently, I.A. No. 7325 of 2017 stands disposed of. Petitions allowed.