Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 590 (JHR)

Amit Singh @ Amit Kr. Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-27

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State. 2. On 06.04.2022, in spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the matter was adjourned. When the matter was taken up today, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and that is why this matter is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party no.2. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order dated 10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant has been married to the petitioner on 26.07.2007 at Khalari and after just one night all accused persons started torturing the complainant making demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lacs and on refusal the accused persons have badly tortured the complainant even after the birth of a female child in the year 2008. It was further alleged that on 25.07.2010, the accused persons have badly beaten the complainant due to which this complainant has left the house of the accused persons and till filing of the case, the accused persons are demanding dowry on phone from the complainant. 5. Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case against her actual husband namely Brajendra Singh and her actual in-laws being Complaint Case No.574/1998 at Ranchi under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which after trial, the learned court has been pleased to acquit all the accused persons in that case vide judgment dated 23.08.2005 due to lack of evidence because opposite party no.2 and other witnesses have never turned up for before charge evidence as she has taken heavy consideration amount from her husband and now this petitioner, who is far relative, has come in target of opposite party no.2 as the petitioner is a rich person and opposite party no.2 has filed the case against the petitioner. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has first lodged one FIR at Ara (Bihar) on 08.08.2010 with different date and time of occurrence and after lodging the FIR, she came to Ranchi and filed the complaint case at Ranchi on 12.08.2010 with different date and time of occurrence with some more allegations, which clearly shows the malicious intention of opposite party no.2. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner is unnecessarily made an accused in this case. 6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after looking to the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has taken cognizance. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance. Annexure-2 is the document, which suggests that one FIR was lodged at Ara (Bihar) against the petitioner being Ara Nagar P.S. Case No.336 of 2010 on 08.08.2010 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the present complaint case has been filed at Ranchi on 12.08.2010. Further looking into the contents of the complaint case, it transpires that there is no allegation of demanding anything by this petitioner. There are allegations against in-laws. 8. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 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. How all the family members and distant relatives have been made accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was subject matter in Geeta Mehrotra & anr. v. State of U.P. & anr.; [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ]. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, looking to the complaint case and earlier case filed at Ara (Bihar), it reveals that there are general allegations against the in-laws. There is no direct allegation so far as the present petitioner is concerned, who is said to be distant relative of in-laws' family members. 10. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, looking to the complaint case and earlier case filed at Ara (Bihar), it reveals that there are general allegations against the in-laws. There is no direct allegation so far as the present petitioner is concerned, who is said to be distant relative of in-laws' family members. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated 10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is quashed. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.