Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1502 (JHR)

Nayeem Sheikh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-12-20

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Opposite party no.2 has refused to accept the notice and in view of that, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been validly served, which was observed by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2017. Today on repeated calls also, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in view of that, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1687/14 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2014, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant was married to petitioner no.1 in the year 2003. At the time of marriage, cash, gold and articles were given. After marriage, the complainant went to sasural and lived properly for three years and thereafter she was being tortured by her in-laws and demand of Rs.50,000/-and two wheeler was made as dowry and on non-fulfillment, she was tortured. It was further alleged that several times, meeting was convened to keep her properly but the accused persons never changed their behaviour. It was also alleged that on 09.10.2011, panchayati was convened and accused persons were directed to keep her properly. It was alleged that even then in-laws continue to torture her. It was further alleged that the accused-Rahimuddin committed rape upon her. It was also alleged that on 18.08.2014, all accused persons assaulted the complainant and sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and tried to kill her, but on intervention of the neighbours, she was saved. It was also alleged that the accused persons snatched her ornaments and children and in the night, she was ousted from the house alongwith her younger son. Thereafter, she went to her sister's house and then went to her Naihar at Giridih and filed this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire family members have been made accused in the case, arising under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner nos. 4, 6 and 7 are brothers-in-law and petitioner no.5 is the cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2. He submits that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner nos. 4, 6 and 7 are brothers-in-law and petitioner no.5 is the cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2. He further submits that the petitioner divorced the opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2014 and she has also recognized the same. The said agreement is annexed at Annexure-2. He submits that on the next date i.e. 21.08.2014, the present complaint case has been filed. He further submits that only general and omnibus allegations are there. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that the learned Court has taken cognizance looking into the averments made in the complaint petition. 7. Although the case has been registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is an admitted position aathat on 20.08.2014, Tlqwas made by the petitioner upon opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure-2 and on the very next day i.e. on 21.08.2014, the present complaint case has been filed. Looking into the complaint petition, it appears that there are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner, who happened to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2. 8. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. It was found that many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused, but also to the complainant. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. , reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 . 9. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused, but also to the complainant. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. , reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 . 9. In a quite number of cases, bed ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husband, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 10. How the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are being filed in the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations, was subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 . 11. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana , reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and 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. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case and on perusal of complaint petition, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2. The complainant alleged that all accused harassed her mentally. Th allegations are, thus, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Even the husband has already divorced opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2014, whereas, the present complaint case has been filed on 21.08.2014. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1687/14 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2014, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih are quashed. 14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.