Saroj Devi wife of Rajesh Ravidas, Daughter of Sita Ram Ravidas v. resident of village
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13281 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Suresh Ravidas @ Suresh Das son of Late Dahoo Ravidas 2. Kalo Devi wife of Suresh Ravidas 3. Gauri Devi @ Gauri Kumari daughter of Suresh Ravidas All resident of village-Phool Chatar, PO- Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya 4. Manju Devi wife of Ramchandra Ravidas, resident of village-Bagahi, PS-Mufassil, District-Gaya. 5. Parmila Devi wife of Yogendra Ravidas, resident of village:Katorba, PS-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Saroj Devi wife of Rajesh Ravidas, Daughter of Sita Ram Ravidas, Versus resident of village:Kosmar, PS-Fatehpur, District-Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra and Deepak Kumar, Advs. For the Opposite Party/s :Mr. Ashok Kumar no. 1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 03-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 25th February 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 573 of 2008 by which the application for discharge has been rejected which is under challenge before this Court. In the complaint petition it has been submitted that O.P. No. 2 was married with Rajesh Ravidas accused no. 1 as per the Hindu rites and customs and after marriage both were living peacefully. Allegation has been made that accused changed their
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13281 of 2011 (7) dt.03-04-2013 2/5 behaviour and adopted very aggressive approach against the complainant. They were always teasing and torturing her and even then she could continue her matrimonial life and from that wed- lock the complaint conceived a child but it was a misfortune, she aborted. Allegation of physical and mental torture has been made claiming that food and water was not supplied to her, even she was assaulted by the accused persons. Ultimately, in the month of January 2008 the complainant was assaulted with fists and slaps and she was driven away from her matrimonial home. The allegation has been made of forcible retention of her ornaments worth Rs. 5,000/- and clothes worth Rs. 5,000/-, cumulative incidents led to filing of the present case, where the husband and all family members, including unmarried sister-in-law and married sister-in-law have been arraigned as accused. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted, the complaint petition does not show of any specific allegation has been made against the petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 though they have been made accused in the present case. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband is not before this Court rather his mother, father including sisters have been made accused without any justification as the married sisters they used to live in their respective matrimonial house whereas the unmarried has nothing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13281 of 2011 (7) dt.03-04-2013 3/5 to do with complainant or her husband and no specific allegation has been made against her. The court below has wrongly refused to discharge the petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and in support of the contention relied on judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 (Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand). Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the materials were sufficient before the court below for taking cognizance. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, as it appears that all the family members including unmarried sister-in-law and married sister-in-law have been roped in the present case and from the complaint petition there is no specific allegation has been made against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a judicial notice, it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated version of the complaints are being made and these days unnecessarily all the family members are being roped in the matrimonial dispute. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The Court has opined, serious relook of the entire provision is warranted. It is high time that the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13281 of 2011 (7) dt.03-04-2013 4/5 existing laws. It will be apt to quote Paras 34 and 35 of the said judgment are as follows: Para- 34 Before parting with this case we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. Para-35 The criminal trial lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering or ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must be take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable chances in the existing laws. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13281 of 2011 (7) dt.03-04-2013 5/5 pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. When there is no specific allegation has been made against petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 mere general allegation in the complaint petition will justify to ask them to face incarceration of criminal trial. In this view of the judgment as aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 573 of 2008 relating to Gauri Devi @ Gauri Kumari (petitioner no. 3), Manju Devi (petitioner no. 4) and Parmila Devi (petitioner no. 5) is set aside and they are discharged from the present case. However, the proceeding will continue against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, this petition is allowed partly. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-