Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 763 (JHR)

Nishilata, w/o. Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-29

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Niranjan Singh, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 2. At the outset, Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 who were father in law and mother in law respectively have left for their heavenly abode during pendency of this petition. He submits that he will delete the names of petitioner nos.1 and 2 in course of the day. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal prosecution in connection with Sadar (Ranchi) P.S. Case No.138/2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1928/2014 and order dated 09.03.2015, pending in the court of J.M., Ranchi. 4. The FIR was lodged by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that that marriage was solemnized with Ajay Kumar on 28.05.2001 according to Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of marriage her father according to his capacity gave cash Rs.1,70,000/- ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/- and other articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter she started living in matrimonial home but after sometime accused persons started abusing and assaulting her for Cash Rs.35,000/- jewellery worth Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles. It is alleged that she was tortured both physically and mentally by the accused persons and her father in law, petitioner no.1 herein, always searched opportunity for establishing physical relation with her and tried with all this, she came at per parent house and started residing there and after some time she was taken back to her sasural where she was meted with cruelty by the accused persons and her father from time to time gave cash and jewellery totaling more than Rs.2,00,000/- but even thereafter, accused persons continued committing cruelty upon her and several times they tried to kill her and also instigated her for committing suicide. On 3.08.2012 when a girl was born, she asked her in laws for coming then they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and four wheeler vehicle for taking her back to Dhanbad but her father was incapable to fulfill their demand and in the meantime, her husband solemnized second marriage with one Soni Kumari and when she questioned Ajay Kumar regarding this, he abused her and told her to do whatever she likes and will not keep her. 5. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner nos.3 and 4 are sisters in law of the O.P.No.2. 5. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner nos.3 and 4 are sisters in law of the O.P.No.2. He submits that husband is not the petitioner in this petition. He further submits that only omnibus and general allegations are there against the sisters in law in the present case. By way of referring cognizance order dated 09.03.2015, he submits that the order is bad in law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Niranjan Singh, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance under the relevant sections of the IPC. 7. The Court has perused the FIR and upon going through the entire contents of the same finds that so far remaining two petitioners are concerned only omnibus and general allegations are there and the contents of the FIR has been noted hereinabove. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts are held that relatives of the husband should not be roped on the basis of the allegations unless specific circumstance of their involvement in the crime are made out. A reference may be made to the case of “K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana” (2018) 14 SCC 452 . Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “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. 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 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.” 8. Looking into the complaint it appears that the O.P.No.2 fails to establish specific allegation against the sisters in law who are the remaining petitioners in this petition. On perusal of the cognizance order dated 09.03.2015 the Court finds that by way of filling of the blank space the cognizance has been taken which shows that the learned court has not applied its judicial mind in taking cognizance. On perusal of the cognizance order dated 09.03.2015 the Court finds that by way of filling of the blank space the cognizance has been taken which shows that the learned court has not applied its judicial mind in taking cognizance. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed to these petitioners, it will be unjust to allow them to face the trauma of trial. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution in connection with Sadar (Ranchi) P.S. Case No.138/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1928/2014 and order dated 09.03.2015, pending in the court of J.M.,1st Class, Ranchi so far the remaining two petitioners are concerned are quashed. Cr.M.P. No. 1037 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the cognizance order so far Ajay Kumar who is the husband of the O.P.No.2 is concerned. 12. Interim order if any stands vacated.