Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 542 (JHR)

Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-20

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. At the outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 has left of his heavenly abode that is why by order dated 30.03.2022 the name of the petitioner no. 2 was directed to be deleted and the same has been done. He submits that now he confines prayer only with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 3. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.07.2013 passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 2118 of 2008 whereby discharge petition filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. 4. The complaint has been filed alleging therein the marriage between opposite party no.2 and Uttam Kumar Rai was solemnized on 10.02.2007 at Dhanbad and all the demanded articles were given to the accused persons except car and due to which the accused persons made a hot exchange of ward with the family members of the opposite party no. 2 but the family members of the complainant accepted to give the car later on. After the marriage, Opp. Party No. 2 was being taken at Muzaffarpur and reached there on 12.2.2007. During the course of journey the accused persons taunted her for not giving the car and in her Sasural at Muzaffarpur she was maltreated and tortured by the accused persons mentally and physically. When the complainant was insisting to live with her husband at New Delhi then all the accused persons became so enraged that they assaulted her causing serious pain on her body and provoking her to commit suicide and when this fact was made known to the family member of the opposite party no.2 then her brother Rajiv Sharma came and requested not to be so harsh with the complainant. Anyhow, her brother brought to her at Delhi and they went to the house of her husband and asked to keep the complainant but accused persons have refused to give shelter to the complainant in Delhi's house and they were abused and seeing of no alternative, the brother of Opp. party No.2 brought her back in the end of July 2008. On 7th August, 2008, the accused persons were invited on the occasion of GRIH PRAWESH in a new Flat of the complainant's family to which, they arrived and started abusing the entire family members of the complainant for not giving the car as per the promise and ultimately they gave ultimatum that unless the car is being given they will not keep the complainant in her Sasural. In the month of October, the complainant was taken to Muzaffarpur by her brother and sister, where the accused persons have refused to keep her and seeing no alternative, the complainant requested her husband to return her Stridhan to which, she was abused and refused to return the Stridhan and since then the complainant is residing at Dhanbad with her mother and facing mental agony. The family members of the complainant took back the complainant to her SASURAL but the accused persons have refused. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint has been filed. 5. On the basis of the said complainant, a Complaint Case No. 2118/2008 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. He submits that so far as these two petitioners are concerned there are only general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners but the learned court has dismissed the petition filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. He submits that in the solemn affirmation of the complainant, she has not taken the name of the these two petitioners. He further submits the complainant has admitted in her solemn affirmation that she has lived in matrimonial home only for 18 days and living in Dhanbad. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that complainant has stated in solemn affirmation that status of her husband is very high and she will not live with him. He further submits the complainant has admitted in her solemn affirmation that she has lived in matrimonial home only for 18 days and living in Dhanbad. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that complainant has stated in solemn affirmation that status of her husband is very high and she will not live with him. He further submits that the mother of the complainant has been examined as one of the enquiry witness wherein she has also not taken name of these two petitioners. He submits that a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by late Uttam Kumar Rai which was allowed inspite of that the complainant has not joined the matrimonial life. He further submits that in these background the learned court has erred in rejecting the petition filed for discharge though the record clearly suggests that the case has been filed maliciously. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the name of Atul Kumar Rai has been taken by the mother of the complainant and complainant herself also taken the name of Atul Kumar Rai. He submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the learned court rightly rejected the petition filed under section 245 of Cr.P.C. 8. Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that learned court looking into solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the complaint petition there is omnibus allegation against these two petitioners. In para 5 of the complaint petition allegations are made that accused persons mentally and physically harassed the complainant and she was not given proper food and clothes. Thus there is no specific allegation against these two petitioners however, in para 5 of the complainant there is allegation against accused no. 1 who happens to be husband of the complainant. In para 6 of the complaint petition, there is allegation of assault against the husband of the complainant. Apart from that there is nothing against these two petitioners and there are only omnibus allegation against these two petitioners however there are allegations against the husband of the complainant. 1 who happens to be husband of the complainant. In para 6 of the complaint petition, there is allegation of assault against the husband of the complainant. Apart from that there is nothing against these two petitioners and there are only omnibus allegation against these two petitioners however there are allegations against the husband of the complainant. In the solemn affirmation the complainant has only taken the name of Atul Kumar Rai but what type of torture has been extended by Atul Kumar Rai, has not been disclosed in the solemn affirmation. Further complainant has admitted that the standard of her husband is high and she will not live with him. The mother of the complainant has been examined in which she has only taken the name of Atul Kumar Rai and what kind of torture has been extended, has not been disclosed by her. In the Matrimonial Case No. 261 of 2011 the complainant was directed to join the matrimonial life inspite of that she has not joined the matrimonial life. Thus, it is crystal clear that the present case has been filed maliciously against these two petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 with regard to taking the name of Atul Kumar Rai, is not being accepted by this Court considering that apart from this, nothing has been stated against Atul Kumar Rai by the complainant and the mother of the complainant. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law of the complainant. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court have considered this aspect of the matter that Section 498A I.P.C. was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now more than ever. This was resulted in an increased tendency to misuse the provisions such as Section 498-A I.P.C. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Sharma V. State of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 472 in para 14 has observed as under:- “14. This was resulted in an increased tendency to misuse the provisions such as Section 498-A I.P.C. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Sharma V. State of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 472 in para 14 has observed as under:- “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband of 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 Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the money over trival issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaints, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such companies lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 11. Considering the issues of 498A of I.P.C. a landmark judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 . How the cases under section 498A of I.P.C. are filed in the heat of the moment over trival issues without proper deliberation was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand” (2010) 7 SCC 667 . In this back ground and looking into the contents of complaint as well as the solemn affirmation and the enquiry witnesses the ultimate justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. In such type of cases it is herculean task to find out the truth in majority of these complaints, the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. In such type of cases it is herculean task to find out the truth in majority of these complaints, the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. In some of the cases, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth and the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and the pragmatic approach is required to be taken by the Court. 12. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, it is clear that at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of I.P.C. and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused, therefore, on consideration of relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner it will be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations. This Court finds that in discharge petition the learned court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and rejected the discharge petition filed under section 245 of Cr.P.C. This Court finds that to allow the proceeding to be continued against these petitioners will amount the abuse of process of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others” 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. 13. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 10.07.2013 passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 2118 of 2008 whereby discharge petition filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are discharged of all charges. 14. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.