Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 268 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2024-03-05

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014 and 1569 of 2015 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015, Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014 and 1569 of 2015 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014, 1375 of 2015 and 1569 of 2015 respectively. 2. There are case and counter case between the parties and in view of that, all these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. 3. In Cr.M.P. No.2831 of 2014, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2014 passed in Gumla P.S. Case No.01 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.10 of 2014, registered for the offences under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 10.11.2014, whereby, charges have been framed under the aforesaid sections against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 4. Gumla P.S. Case No.01 of 2014 was registered alleging therein that the informant had been married to Rajesh Kumar Gupta on 17.04.2008 as per Hindu custom. At the time of marriage, the father of the informant has given several articles as gift to the in-laws. Thereafter, when the informant came to her matrimonial home at Tajpur in the district of Samastipur (Bihar), the in-laws started torturing the informant for dowry. When the informant protested then the accused persons used to abuse and assault her. It was further alleged that when the informant brought to the notice of her parent in law the conduct of her in-laws, the father of the informant send some money and articles, but even then the in-laws continued to torture her and finally the informant came to Gumla and started residing there with her parents along with her two children. 5. 5. In Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2015 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.402 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.1204 of 2014 by which the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 6. Gumla P.S. Case No.402 of 2014 was registered alleging therein that the informant of that case was working in Puna. On 10.11.2014 in the morning, he came with his wife Namrata Gupta for the Court work and stayed in the house of his sister at Palkot Road. As soon as he reached there, his father-in-law Raj Kishore Sah along with his son Gaurav Kumar and nephew Abhishek Kumar arrived there and started abusing and assaulting him. On hulla, the informant's sister Reeta Devi also arrived there, they misbehaved with her and torn the clothes. The key of scooty fell down and the same was deposited in the police station. 7. In Cr.M.P. No.1569 of 2015, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2015 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.403 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1205 of 2014 by which the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 8. Gumla P.S. Case No.403 of 2014 was registered alleging therein that earlier a case was filed in which the husband of the informant has compromised on 03.02.2014 and has taken the informant and her two daughters along with him. Thereafter, the accused persons used to assault and torture the informant. On 10.11.2014, the informant was brought to Gumla where she has been threatened not to disclose anything against him in the Court. In the meantime, the informant informed her parents that she has arrived at the house of Rita Devi, thereafter, her father and brother came there to meet the informant upon which the accused persons started assaulting them and accused Bijay Kumar also tried to implicate her brother in a false case by torn the blouse of his wife. 9. Mr. In the meantime, the informant informed her parents that she has arrived at the house of Rita Devi, thereafter, her father and brother came there to meet the informant upon which the accused persons started assaulting them and accused Bijay Kumar also tried to implicate her brother in a false case by torn the blouse of his wife. 9. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014 and 1569 of 2015 submits that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.2831 of 2014 i.e. petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner nos.3 and 6 are the brother-in-law and petitioner nos.4 and 5 are the sister-in-law of the informant. By way of referring the contents of the FIR, he submits that there are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. He submits that the relatives have been made accused in the case for the alleged matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. He further submits that during the investigation of the case, the compromise has entered between the husband and wife and she went along with the husband and was residing with him at Pune, Maharashtra. He also submits that the marriage was solemnized on 17.04.2008, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 03.01.2014. By way of referring the order dated 01.02.2014, contained in pages 14 to 16 of Cr.M.P. No.2831 of 2014, he submits that compromise was there and in view of that, bail was granted to the husband. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 25.06.2014. He submits that the charges have been framed vide order dated 10.11.2014. He submits that prior to framing of charge, petitioner no.1 along with his wife had come to Gumla where the case was pending and he had asked his wife to stay in the house of his sister. He submits that thereafter on the same day i.e. on 10.11.2014, there were quarrel between the parties and for that, the husband has filed FIR being Gumla P.S. Case No.402 of 2014 was registered, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015. He submits that thereafter on the same day i.e. on 10.11.2014, there were quarrel between the parties and for that, the husband has filed FIR being Gumla P.S. Case No.402 of 2014 was registered, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015. He submits that the wife has also lodged FIR on the same date being Gumla P.S. Case No.403 of 2014, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.1569 of 2015 and these two cases had been filed by both the sides on the ground that quarrel has taken place in the house of the sister of the husband, namely, Rita Gupta @ Rita Devi, who is wife of Vijay Kumar. He further submits that the FIR, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.1569 of 2015 was registered by the wife of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, who is petitioner no.1 in Cr.M.P. No.2831 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.1569 of 2015. By way of referring contents of two FIRs, which are subject matters in Cr.M.P. Nos.1375 of 2015 and 1569 of 2015, he submits that there are case and counter case between the parties and the allegations are identical by each of them. 10. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State jointly submit that it appears that there are case and counter case between the husband and wife and their family members. 11. Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the wife and petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015 submits that the allegations are there and even after compromise, the husband has not kept the wife with all dignity and in view of that, the case is made out. He further submits that so far as the case registered by the husband, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015 is concerned, that may kindly be quashed and the cases filed by the husband and his relatives kindly be dismissed on the ground that the wife has been tortured by none other than her husband. On these grounds, he submits that the case of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015 may kindly be allowed and rest two cases being Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014 and 1569 of 2015 may kindly be dismissed. 12. Admittedly in all these cases, the petitioners are relatives amongst each other. On these grounds, he submits that the case of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1375 of 2015 may kindly be allowed and rest two cases being Cr.M.P. Nos.2831 of 2014 and 1569 of 2015 may kindly be dismissed. 12. Admittedly in all these cases, the petitioners are relatives amongst each other. Gumla P.S. Case No.01 of 2014 was lodged by the wife against her husband and other in-laws on the ground that she was subjected to torture by all the accused persons. Looking into the contents of the FIR, the Court finds that only general and omnibus allegations are there. In the contents of the FIR, it is stated that all the accused harassed her mentally and threatened her and demanded dowry. What is the mode of torture by which all the accused have tortured the informant, that is not disclosed in the contents of the FIR and in view of that, it appears that there are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. 13. Further, the wife has already compromised the case with the husband and she was residing along with him at Pune, Maharashtra and she lived there for about 9 months and, thereafter, she had come along with husband and she was asked to reside in the house of husband's sister. 14. Further, on 10.11.2014, the quarrel has taken place between the parties in the house of husband's sister, namely, Rita Gupta @ Rita Devi. The in-laws of the husband had come to the house of Rita Gupta @ Rita Devi, where, the occurrence has taken place and for that, the case and counter case have been filed between the parties. Thus, it appears that for settling the score between the parties, both the parties have lodged the cases against each other, one case is registered at 17:00 hours and another is registered at 17:15 hours on the even date. 15. Further, the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and every family members have been made accused on general and omnibus allegations. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 16. 15. Further, the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and every family members have been made accused on general and omnibus allegations. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 16. Further, it is experienced that in the cases filed by the wife if the husband or husband's relative had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether and that process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 17. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. 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. 18. These matters were sent before the Member Secretary, JHALSA for mediation between the parties and in spite of the request made by Mr. Chaturvedy to the wife to appear, she has not appeared. 19. Further coming to the facts of the present case, looking into the contents of the FIRs, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners in all these three cases, either upon the family members of the husband or upon the family members of the wife. If such type of litigation is brought to the knowledge of the High Court, the Court is required to proceed with circumspection and with all due care. The High Court must be slow in quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that is a well settled principle of law and that has been considered in several judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. The High Court must be slow in quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that is a well settled principle of law and that has been considered in several judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. However, if the cases like these, which are brought to the knowledge of the High Court and if the High Court will not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that is an amount to abuse of process of law and if such things are there, the High Court has got more responsibility to read the things in between the line as if the case is maliciously filed and every care is taken in drafting of the contents of the FIRs so that ingredients of relevant sections may be made out. 20. What has been discussed above, it is crystal clear that so far as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that was only filed with motive to settle the score and rest of the two cases filed by the husband and wife, those were also on the heat of the moment by each other on the even date and one was lodged at 17:00 hours and another was lodged at 17:15 hours. 21. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that to allow to continue the proceedings, will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2014 and order dated 10.11.2014 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.01 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.10 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2015 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.402 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.1204 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla and the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2015 in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.403 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1205 of 2014, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla are quashed. 22. These petitions are, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.