Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1396 (JHR)

Md. Aslam Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2022-12-13

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.D.Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Lohardaga in Cr.Rev.No.22 of 2021 whereby the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Misc.Cr.Application No.374 of 2021 arising out of G.R.No.542 of 2019, corresponding to Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S.Case No.28 of 2019 whereby application for discharge from the charges under sections 498A/34 of the IPC as well as sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been rejected, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 3. The case has been filed alleging therein that the informant was married with the petitioner no.4, 3 years back. At the time of marriage, parents of the informant has provided dowry of Rs.One lac, got Motorcycle, Freeze and Washing Machine and a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- along with other house hold articles. After remaining one month peacefully the accused persons again demanded Rs.One lac cash and one Pulsar motorcycle and on refusal the accused persons started torturing the informant. Thereafter the informant called her father but the accused persons also misbehaved with him and put the demand before him. Thereafter the informant went with her father along with her child her father’s house and remained there for 1 ½ years. Her father when asked her to lodge a case, she initially refused but subsequently she filed this case as the accused persons did not care about her and her child. In the meantime, the accused persons lodged a case before the Family Court and upon settlement on 25.06.2018, she went to her inlaws house and remained there for 10-11 months where she fell ill and upon treatment, it was found that there was stone in her stomach which needs operation. On 17.12.2018, her treatment was done and the entire expenses were born by her father. Again on 28.05.2019, the accused persons started torturing her for their demand and ultimately on 29.05.2019, her father took her to his house. On the same day on 29.05.2019, the husband and father in law came to her father’s house and abused and assaulted the informant for their demand. 4. Mr. Again on 28.05.2019, the accused persons started torturing her for their demand and ultimately on 29.05.2019, her father took her to his house. On the same day on 29.05.2019, the husband and father in law came to her father’s house and abused and assaulted the informant for their demand. 4. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is father in law and petitioner no.2 is mother in law, petitioner no.3 is sister in law and petitioner no.4 is the husband of the informant/O.P.No.2. He submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He submits that without appreciating the contents of the F.I.R the learned court has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners by order dated 14.09.2021. He submits that the said order was taken before the learned revisional court in Cr.Rev. No.22 of 2021 and by order dated 24.05.2022, the learned revisional court has also dismissed the petition. He submits that only general and omnibus allegations are there against these petitioners and the discharge order is not in accordance with the law. He submits that in the section 498A IPC matter, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the general and omnibus allegations and has quashed the proceeding. He relied on paragraph no.22 of the said judgment which is quoted herein below: “22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complaint’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that the criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are direct allegations against these petitioners and charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are direct allegations against these petitioners and charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. The discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the learned trial court which is affirmed by the learned revisional court and there is no illegality in the revisional order. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that after criminal revision order this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed. He submits that under the garb of second revision under section 482 Cr.P.C has been sought and there is no illegality in the criminal revision order. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R it transpires that there are allegations against the mother in law, sister in law and the husband of the O.P.no.2 of demanding one lac rupees as dowry and one pulsar motorcycle and there are also allegations of using filthy language against the O.P.No.2. There are allegations in the F.I.R itself. The case has been investigated by the police and charge sheet has been submitted and pursuant thereto the learned court has taken cognizance. Thus, there are materials in the charge sheet also and that is why the learned court has taken the cognizance. In the case where the charge sheet is submitted by the police, the learned court is required to look into the materials in the charge sheet and take cognizance. The discharge petition filed by the petitioner is rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 14.09.2021 and the revisional court has also examined the consistent statement of the witnesses including the entries of the petitioner and there are allegation of torture and demand of dowry against the petitioners and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Moreover, if any injustice is not done, second revision in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The judgment relied by Mr. Moreover, if any injustice is not done, second revision in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The judgment relied by Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute and in the cases where the F.I.R is on general and omnibus allegations, the High Courts are rising to the occasion and interfered in the matter, however, in the case in hand that is not the fact and there are allegations in the F.I.R. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.1801 of 2022 is dismissed. 8. Interim order is vacated. 9. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.