Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 345 (JHR)

Manohar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-17

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad as well as for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 152 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2667 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. On the written application of the informant, the FIR has been registered, wherein, it has been alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Shantanu Suman on 25.04.2008 and after marriage she came to her matrimonial home, where she came to know that maternal uncle of her husband is the guardian of the family and he along with his brother-in-law, namely, Manoj Pandey demanded additional dowry of Rs.3 Lakhs after marriage from her and for that they started subjecting her to torture. It has also been alleged that maternal aunt of her husband taken away her ornaments. After 18 days of marriage, the father of the informant taken away her to the parental house and thereafter she had been residing with her parents for next four years. Nobody from her matrimonial home had taken care of her and hence she had left with no option to file a complaint before the Mahila Helpline, Patna on 12.05.2012. Thereafter, Manoj Choubey and Manoj Pandey came to her parental house and taken her to her matrimonial home. Thereafter they again demanded Rs.3 Lakhs and a car and for that they have started subjecting her to torture. Thereafter, she gave information about such torture to her parents and upon that on 30.06.2012, she again returned to her parental house with her brother and father and thereafter the case has been registered against all the accused persons. 4. Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the maternal uncle-in-law of opposite party no. 2, petitioner no. 2 is the maternal aunt-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the married maternal sister-in-law, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are maternal brother-in-law and petitioner no. 6 is the brother-in-law of petitioner no. 1. She further submits that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioners and unnecessarily, they have been dragged in this case. 2, petitioner no. 2 is the maternal aunt-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the married maternal sister-in-law, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are maternal brother-in-law and petitioner no. 6 is the brother-in-law of petitioner no. 1. She further submits that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioners and unnecessarily, they have been dragged in this case. She also submits that this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and if such situation was there that even the distant relatives have been arrayed as accused, the High Court is required to interfere in the matter. To buttress this argument, she relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 162. 5. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy.” Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the father of husband of opposite party no. 2 left for his heavenly abode when he was only two years old and they are trying to grab the property of husband of opposite party no. 2. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons and there are materials on record, which suggest that all are involved in torturing her and demanded money of dowry. 2. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons and there are materials on record, which suggest that all are involved in torturing her and demanded money of dowry. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2015) 11 SCC 260 . By way of relying on this judgment, he submits that it is well settled that the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be very slow and such power is to be exercised in circumspection. 7. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State submits that after the charge-sheet, the learned court has taken cognizance. 8. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the contents of the FIR and order taking cognizance. It appears from the contents of the FIR that there are direct allegation so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, who are maternal uncle-in-law and maternal aunt-in-law of opposite party no. 2 respectively. It has been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the father of husband of opposite party no. 2 left for his heavenly abode when he was only 2 years old and he was residing with petitioner nos. 1 and 2. A letter addressed to the Officer-in-Charge by the husband of opposite party no. 2 suggests that he has stated that he will not leave petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Annexure-A/1 is an agreement between petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 before the Women Helpline, Patna, wherein, it was agreed that they will keep opposite party no. 2 with all dignity and in spite of that things have not good. There is no doubt that in the cases where distant relatives are made accused, the High Court is rising to the occasion and is quashing the complaint or FIR, however at the same time the same is required to be done on the basis of facts of each case. There is no doubt that in the cases where distant relatives are made accused, the High Court is rising to the occasion and is quashing the complaint or FIR, however at the same time the same is required to be done on the basis of facts of each case. Considering that where ample foundation for offence is laid down, the Court must be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied till there is substantial compliance of the requirement of the offence. There is no direct allegation so far petitioner nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned and to allow to continue the proceeding against them, will amount to abuse of process of law. 9. In view of the above facts, so far as petitioner nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 152 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2667 of 2012 including the order dated 23.02.2013, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed. 10. So far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 23.02.2013 is kept intact. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part and disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.