Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1366 (JHR)

Hrishikesh Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-22

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has held that there is sufficient material in the record for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 married the complainant/opposite party No.2 on 21.11.2016. At the time of her marriage, the father of the complainant/opposite party No.2 paid cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.7,50,000/- for jewellery, Rs.50,000/- for clothes and Rs.70,000/- for house-hold articles but being not satisfied with that the petitioners used to treat the complainant/opposite party No.2 with cruelty in connection of demand of further dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- and a car. The complainant/opposite party No.2 has described in detail the acts of cruelty committed by the petitioners. In respect of the occurrence on the written report submitted by the complainant/opposite party No.2, Kadugodi P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 was registered on 13.01.2020 in the district of Bengaluru City in the State of Karnataka. After that three separate occurrences took place on 12.02.2020 when the complainant/opposite party No.2 was not allowed to enter into her matrimonial house because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 15.02.2020 when the complainant/opposite party No.2 went to collect her marriage certificate on the way she was wrongfully restrained by the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 and they criminally intimidated her by threatening to kill her and abused her by using obscene language in public and there is also allegation that on 22.02.2020, the petitioners threatened the complainant/opposite party No.2 to kill her and also threatened her. 4. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found sufficient materials in the record for proceeding against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issuance of process itself is bad in law and not in conformity with the settled principle of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issuance of process itself is bad in law and not in conformity with the settled principle of law. It is next submitted that the petitioners are innocent and the allegations made against them are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.4 who happens to be elder sister-in-law of the complainant/opposite party No.2 resides at separate place with her husband at Noida since February, 2013 and there is no specific allegation against her after institution of the F.I.R. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 paragraph-25 of which reads as under:- “25. While comparing both the FIRs there is no doubt that both the incidents had occurred at the same place in close proximity of time, therefore, they are two parts of the same transaction. More so, the death of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai has been mentioned in both the FIRs. From the report for deletion of Section 302 IPC, it is apparent that it is not the case of the investigating officer that the death of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai had not occurred during the course of the incident in connection with which CR No. I-154 of 2008 came to be registered.” and submits that two F.I.Rs’ relating to same incident are not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 to buttress his submissions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.W. Palanitkar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hand of frustrated or vindictive litigants, forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case also, the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 draws the attention of this Court towards Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under:- “210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.—(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” and submits that there is a distinction between institution of two F.I.Rs’ and institution of a complaint case and an F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 next submits that the legislature in its wisdom has allowed simultaneous existence of a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence and the procedure, therefor, has been laid down in Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. Though the complaint has been filed for further occurrences which occurred after institution of the F.I.R. but in case the petitioners intends to contend that for the self-same offence a complaint has been filed, they can approach the concerned court in terms of the Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. but there is no rhyme or reason to quash the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the law relating to institution of two F.I.Rs’ in respect of the same offence and the filing of a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence is different. Certainly, the second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence is not permissible in law and in this respect law has well settled in the cases of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others (supra) and T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Others (supra). But in this case the grievance of the petitioners is not that two F.I.Rs’ have been instituted for the self-same offence rather it is the case where one complaint case and one F.I.R. has been instituted for the same offence. Though this contention of the petitioners is not admitted by the complainant/opposite party No.2 rather the complainant/opposite party No.2 contends that for a fresh set of occurrences, the complaint has been instituted. Though this contention of the petitioners is not admitted by the complainant/opposite party No.2 rather the complainant/opposite party No.2 contends that for a fresh set of occurrences, the complaint has been instituted. As already indicated above; since the legislature in his wisdom has provided a particular procedure to be adopted in case, there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of a same offence, this Court is not inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro on the ground that for the self-same offence, police investigation is also going on rather in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the order dated 26.05.2022 and all subsequent proceedings of Complaint Case No.239 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, stands rejected and consequently this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, also stands rejected. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted to the petitioners vide order dated 12.09.2022 stands vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.