The High Court
Case Details
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.2389 of 2012 Pushpa Prasad @ Pusupa...............................Petitioner V E R S U S State of Jharkhand and another..............Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner:Mr.Mukesh Kumar Sinha For the State :A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 :In person 4/ 2.4.13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 in person. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case no.1948 of 2010 including the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . It is the case of the complainant that the complainant having married the accused Mukul Prasad when came to her in-laws' place, accused persons started taunting and humiliating her for bringing insufficient dowry. They also put forth demand of car. Further it has been alleged that the accused no.2, father-in-law on one pretext or other created such circumstance/situation that the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home only after four days of the marriage. She returned to her parents home at Ranchi. Thereafter an attempt was made by the parents of the complainant so that accused persons may take the complainant to her in-laws' place but they never cared to take the complainant to her in-laws' place, rather they insisted upon to get the demand fulfilled. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences as stated above has been taken against the petitioner who happens tobe the married sister-in-law of the complainant as well as mother-in-law, father-in-law and another sister- in-law and also against other accused persons. That order is under challenge.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant itself that the complainant left her in-laws' place after four days of the marriage and in such situation, whatever allegation of demand or subjection to cruelty has been levelled it appears to be improbable and that allegation which has been put forth in the complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner at one point of time taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and at other place, it has been alleged that the petitioner contacted the parents of the complainant for dowry but there has been absolutely no allegation of subjection to cruelty and hence, no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner when no specific allegation is there against the petitioner of putting forth demand of dowry and therefore, any continuation of the proceeding would amount abuse of the process of the court. Further it was submitted that the petitioner is a British citizen and had come to India to attend marriage ceremony of his brother and had stayed in India only for 30 days and as such, it is not expected from a person not visiting the place frequently that she would be putting forth any demand and in such situation, the case be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that anxious consideration be given by the court in case of relatives of the husband who never visits or rarely visits the place of complainant/informant who lodges the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, the person who is being not alleged specifically to have subjected the complainant to torture, he/she is never warranted to be put on trial. In this regard decision rendered in a case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P and another [2013 (1) J.L.J.R 115 (SC)] was referred to. Thus, it was submitted that the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. It was further submitted that in similar situation, case of Dolly another sister-in-law has been quashed by this Court As against this opposite party no.2 in person submitted that after solemnization of the marriage, when she came to her in-laws' place, the accused persons including the petitioner started putting forth demand of dowry and that it was the petitioner, who before the marriage persuaded her to get marry to his brother as she is having Degree in Management and his brother is also highly educated both of them will have no difficulty in getting job abroad. On being persuaded by her and other accused persons, she agreed for marriage but after the marriage, this petitioner and other accused persons created such circumstances/situation that the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home just after four days of marriage and therefore, in this situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed particularly when warrant of arrest and also the processes under Section 82 has been issued against her and that all the accused persons simply want to delay the trial as this petitioner had never earlier moved for quashing of the order taking cognizance when other accused persons had moved before this Court and only when the process has been issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has moved to this Court which simply indicates that the accused persons want to delay the trial and therefore, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the order taking cognizance had been challenged even by the husband, Mukul Prasad, father-in-law, mother-in-law but the prayer has been rejected by this Court whereas prayer for quashing of another sister-in-law namely, Dolly has been allowed, vide order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1381 of 2012 taking into account that she being married sister-in-law will have least concerned with the affairs of husband and wife and that no specific allegation was there with respect to subjection to cruelty to the complainant by the said petitioner, Dolly. Similar is the case with this petitioner who has been alleged to have taunted at one point of time for bringing less dowry and at another point of time, she contacted the parents for dowry but there does not appear to be any allegation with respect to subjection to cruelty and in such situation, the prosecution of the petitioner would be wholly unwarranted. In this respect, case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P and another (supra) may be referred to wherein their Lordship has observed as follows: “However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teaching problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.” In such situation, any prosecution of petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. Under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance is quashed so far petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, this application is allowed. ( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/