The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 488 of 2016 1. Paresh Puran 2. Sukhmati Devi 3. Jeet Mohan Puran 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Usha Puran Versus -------- ..... … Petitioner ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : ------ 03/ 12.12.2023 Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. For the Petitioners For the State petitioners and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2015, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A, 448, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 4108 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The prosecution case is based on the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 being Complaint Case No. 930/2012 before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranchi, which was subsequently forwarded to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of F.I.R. and investigation of the case. In the complaint it has been alleged that the marriage of the informant was solemnized on 18.5.1994 as per Hindu rites with the Accused No. 1, Rati Nath Puran, who is a senor worker at Dhemomen Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It is further stated that after solemnization of the marriage the informant remained peacefully in her in-laws house at Dhemomen along with her husband gave birth to two children namely Rupesh Chandra and Shailesh Chandra, who are now aged about 15 years and 10 years respectively. It is further alleged that all of a sudden behaviour of the Accused No. 1/husband changed from the year 2007 and thereafter all the accused persons started torturing the complainant in a peculiar manner and started demanding Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry from the father of the complainant, who had retired from Bokaro -2- Steel Plant and when it was denied, the accused persons started torturing her and also assaulted her regularly. It is further alleged that the Accused No. 1 has an illicit relationship with the Accused No. 4, Sukhmati Devi (Petitioner No. 2 herein) and the same was within the knowledge of other family members but none were opposing the same. It is further alleged that the character of the Accused No. 1 has become questionable and he was found in an illicit relationship with a maid servant resulting into her pregnancy but she did not raise any hue and cry on the request of her husband due to family prestige. The complainant protested the illegal demand and illegal activities of her husband upon which all the accused persons tortured her mentally and physically due to which she became ill, however, no medicine was provided to her as they wanted to kill her and therefore, she returned to her parents' house. After returning to her parents' house she made a complaint before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti and when it was come to the knowledge of the accused persons they came to her parents' house and took her with them to her matrimonial house with an assurance that she will not be tortured and she will be kept with full honour and dignity and also will maintain her and for which a declaration was filed on 31.10.2009. The aforesaid complaint made by the complainant was numbed as 13/2009 and therefore, the same was withdrawn on 20.3.2010. It is further alleged that after withdrawal of the case, the activities of the in-laws changed and they started torturing her again. It is further alleged that on 11.3.2012 all the accused persons came to the house of the complainant situated at Sarjomdih and entered into her house and assaulted her and her family members and the Accused No. 4 has snatched the Mangalsutra of the complainant and this way they have violated the terms of compromise and therefore, she went to Tamar Police Station for registration of F.I.R. but the same was not registered, therefore, the present complaint was filed, which was subsequently forwarded to the concerned police station resulting into the present F.I.R. 4. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners -3- submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the distant relative of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that the case is registered under Section 498-A and other Sections of the IPC and so far as the petitioners are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against them. He submits that for sending the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned court has called upon a report from the officer-in-charge of Tamar Police Station, who has submitted the report on 07.09.2012, contained in Annexure- 2/1, wherein it has been disclosed that no case is made out against these petitioners, in spite of that the FIR has been registered and learned court has taken the cognizance. He further submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned, unnecessarily the case has been registered. 5. Mr. Sen, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the case is made out and in view of that the learned court has taken the cognizance. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the distant relative of the O.P. No. 2. In the complaint petition, there are general and omnibus against the petitioners. The distant relatives are made also accused, which was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao V. The State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and the relatives of the husband should not be roped in, on the basis of general and omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 7.
Decision
In view of the above, if the petitioners are forced to face the trauma of trial, will amount to undue harassment to the petitioners. As such, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2015, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A, 448, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 4108 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed so far these petitioners are concerned. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. -4- 9. The court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance so far as other accused persons are concerned and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)