Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1003 (JHR)

Usha Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2023-08-08

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : This matter was earlier referred to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) for mediation between the parties. A report has been received from JHALSA, wherein, it has been stated that the mediation failed. 2. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit. 3. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1931/2013 registered under Section 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh). 5. Subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and that was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3664 of 2016, which was allowed vide order dated 29.06.2016. Hence, the charge-sheet and order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2014 are also under challenge in this petition. 6. I.A. No.2649 of 2020 has been filed for amendment in prayer portion of the Cr.M.P. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, the order dated 01.12.2014 has been passed by the learned court, by which, charge of offence under Section 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed against the petitioners. 8. It appears that in the said I.A., no order has been passed. Today this I.A. has been placed, however objection is being made by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that the charge has already been framed, this Court may not allow the said I.A. 9. The Court has taken into consideration the nature of the allegation made in the FIR as well as subsequent development and also considering that the order taking cognizance was allowed to be challenged by earlier order and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed. 10. Let this I.A. be treated as part of the Cr.M.P. No.643 of 2014. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No.2649 of 2020 is disposed of. 12. Hence, the order dated 01.12.2014 is also under challenge in this petition. 13. 10. Let this I.A. be treated as part of the Cr.M.P. No.643 of 2014. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No.2649 of 2020 is disposed of. 12. Hence, the order dated 01.12.2014 is also under challenge in this petition. 13. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the marriage of the informant Bibha Rani was solemnized with Sanjeev Pandey on 27.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the father of the informant transferred Rs.6 Lakhs cash from his account to the account of the informant's husband and gave many things to the informant in the form of gifts and spend lot of money. Everything was well till six months, but afterward the informant was tortured. The accused persons used to force to bring money from her father. In the meantime, they used to assault and abuse her. The informant would tolerate everything. In the meantime, she became pregnant. She was sent to her father's house. She gave birth to a baby boy on 04.10.2010. The informant went to her in-laws house and, thereafter, her father gave Rs.50,000/-to her husband. When the informant reached there, then the accused persons demanded that why her father did not give gold and silver to his grandson. She used to tolerate many tortures and have gone to her father's house many times. They now demanded Rs.8 Lakhs from her as her parents was not able to arrange the said amount, she went back to her father's house. She came to her sasural on 27.01.2013 at the time of marriage of her nanad Annu. At that time also, the accused persons demanded Rs.8 Lakhs. They snatched all the jewelleries of the informant by breaking the lock of the almirah and had a plan to throw her from the roof of the house. She somehow managed to escape by locking herself and her son in the room. The informant's father and other people came there to save her. She then returned back to her father's house. The accused persons always threatened her and abused her father and mother on the phone. They said that without money, she will not be welcome in her sasural and the husband will marry second time. 14. Mr. The informant's father and other people came there to save her. She then returned back to her father's house. The accused persons always threatened her and abused her father and mother on the phone. They said that without money, she will not be welcome in her sasural and the husband will marry second time. 14. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a widow and old lady and she is the mother-in-law of the informant, petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law of the informant, petitioner no.3 is the husband of the informant, petitioner no.4 is unmarried sister-in-law of the informant at the time of allegation, petitioner nos. 5 to 7 are married sisters-in-law of the informant and they are residing in different States and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the present case. He further submits that this Court has already stayed the proceeding and the proceeding is not going on. He also submits that the husband of the informant (petitioner no.3) has filed matrimonial suit for divorce on 05.05.2013 in which notices were issued to the informant and, thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged. On these grounds, so far as the petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there are direct allegations against the petitioners. He further submits that the other petitioners have instigated the husband of opposite party no.2 and they are involved in torturing the opposite party no.2. He also submits that in civil case with regard to maintenance, the husband is not paying the maintenance, however, that is a separate issue, which is being considered by the competent court. He further submits that charge has been framed and three witnesses have already been examined. On these grounds, he submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and that is why, the learned court has taken cognizance. 17. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is admitted that petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the husband and petitioner nos. 4 to 7 are sisters-in-law of the opposite party no.2. 17. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is admitted that petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the husband and petitioner nos. 4 to 7 are sisters-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that except the husband, who is petitioner no.3, there are general and omnibus allegations against them. Even the married sisters-in-law, who are residing outside the State, they have been implicated in the present case. 18. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with pious view for punishing cruelty of the husband, however, nowadays, the said Section is being misused which has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [ (2014) 8 SCC 273 ]. 19. How the cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another; [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ]. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 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. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 20. The entire family members are roped arising out in such type of case was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & another v. State of UP & another' [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ]. 21. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 20. The entire family members are roped arising out in such type of case was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & another v. State of UP & another' [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ]. 21. Further, the cases related to distant relatives was further subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana; [ (2018) 14 SCC 452 ]. 22. The above mentioned cases clearly demonstrate that the Court at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and increase of tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramification of a trial on a complaint. 23. Coming back to the facts of this case, it appears that the petitioner no.3 has filed divorce case before the competent court on 05.05.2013 and after issuance of notice upon the informant in that case, the present FIR has been lodged on 10.06.2013. Even the married sisters-in-law, who are residing outside the State, have been implicated as accused in the FIR. So far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations except the husband, who is petitioner no.3. Thus, it appears that except petitioner no.3, rest of the petitioners are unnecessarily facing trauma of trial. 24. It is well settled if the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even at a later stage, comes to the conclusion that entire proceeding can be quashed, that power can be exercised with circumspection, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar & others; [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ] . 25. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, so far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1931/2013 including the orders dated 14.07.2014 and 01.12.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) are quashed. 26. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 27. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1931/2013 including the orders dated 14.07.2014 and 01.12.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) are quashed. 26. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 27. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the case of petitioner no.3, who is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the learned court shall proceed against petitioner no.3, in accordance with law without prejudiced to this order. 28. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.