1. Md. Nazim Ali 2. Neyamat Ali v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 ---- 1. Md. Nazim Ali 2. Neyamat Ali .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- ---- For the Petitioners For the State For the OP No.2 :- Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate :- Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, APP :- Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate :- Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate ---- 03/07.05.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.2046 of 2016 pending in Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the prosecution has been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the Complainant (O.P. No. 2 herein) against the petitioners and other family members of the petitioners alleging therein that the O.P. No. 2 was married to the Petitioner No. 1 on 3.5.2011 as per Islamic customs and traditions at the house of the O.P. No. 2 at Village Chatwal. The marriage was an arranged marriage. That as per the complaint petition, at the time of marriage (NIKAH), father of the Complaint/O.P. No. 2 gave golden and silver Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --1-- jewelleries worth Rs. 3,00,000/- on demand to the Accused/Petitioner No. 2, namely, Neyamat Ali and in addition to the above the Petitioner No. 2 also took Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash one week ago before the date of marriage on threat that if the said sum is not provided they shall become unable to perform the marriage on 3.5.2011. In compelling circumstances father of the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 anyhow arranged the said sum and gave the same to the Petitioner No. 2 for the welfare of his daughter. Besides the above, other valuable gifts were also given to the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 and the Accused/Petitioner No. 1 by the relatives and other well-wishers and a detailed list was also prepared
Legal Reasoning
duly signed by both the parties. The Petitioner No. 1 (husband of the O.P. No. 2) is a railway employee, East Coast Railway, at present posted at Waltair (A.P.) and living at D. No. 38-1-6/4, Mosque Street, Marripalem, Vishakhapatnam- 18 (A.P.), Accused No. 2 and 3 are father (petitioner no. 2 herein) and mother respectively and accused no. 4 is Bhabhi of the Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1. It is further alleged that the said marriage of the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 leads life as wife and husband at the house of the accused/petitioners at Village Churitola, P.S. -Kanke, District Ranchi. Thereafter about one week the Husband/Petitioner No. 1 left alone for Vishakhapatnam. Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --2-- It is further stated that the Petitioner No. 1/ Husband took his wife (O.P. No. 2) to Vishakhapatnam after two months where he kept the O.P. No. 2 for sometime properly and during the period the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 became pregnant. It is further stated that in the month of August, 2011 the parents of the Complainant/ O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 went to Vishakhapatnam and brought the Complainant/ O.P. No. 2 to Ranchi at her Maika where she born a female child namely Sufia Tasleem on 31.1.2012. It is further stated that after birth of the said female child, the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her newly born child were brought to her Sasural at Churitola, Kanke sometime in the month of July, 2012 where the Accused No.2, 3 and 4 started to demand a four-wheeler car for Accused/Petitioner No. 1 and for which started to torture the Complainant/O./P. No. 2 mentally and physically and due to torture and harassment subjected to her by the Accused No. 2, 3 and 4, she fell ill, anyhow six months were passed away then the accused called the Complainant/ O.P. No. 2 to Visakhapatnam at the house of her husband which fact gave her hope of happiness. It is further stated that the complainant/ O.P. No. 2 lived there sometime properly but when her brother Muzibul Ansari returned back to Ranchi the Petitioner No. 1 started to pressurise the O.P. No. 2 to demand a car or Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parents and when she Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --3-- refused and said that her father is a poor man and not in position to take further loan then the Accused/petitioner No. 1 off and on started torturing the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 physically which became very much painful for her. It is further stated that the Complainant narrated all the matters to her parents on mobile phone and requested to bring her at Ranchi and on her request the parents of the Complainant sent her brothers Muzibul Ansari and Ejaj Ansari who returned back with the Complainant in the month of June 2015 and in Ranchi she again gave birth to a daughter in the month of February, 2015. It is further alleged that during the period the Petitioner No. 1 never came to Ranchi to see his wife and daughters even his newly born daughter. It is further alleged that at random in December, 2015 the Accused No. 2, 3 and 4 came to the house of the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 at Village - Chatwal, Mandar and requested her and her parents to send the Complainant to her husband’s house at Visakhapatnam, they also promised that nor the accused nor they will torture the complainant for want of car or money as dowry. For the sake of bright future of her two daughters the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 agreed to go to Visakhapatnam and as such she again went to Visakhapatnam with her brothers Muzibul Ansari and Ejaj Ansari where she lived about six months with the Petitioner Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --4-- No. 1 and in this period the Petitioner No. 1 also started to go office after locking his house from outside. She was compelled to live inside the room whole day and even in night. This was very much painful for her. Any protest on such acts of the Petitioner No. 1 becomes fatal on her. It was habit of the Petitioner No. 1 to slap on her frequently and there was nobody to save her. It is further alleged that on 7.7.2016 on the occasion of "Eid" the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 along with their daughters came to Ranchi at her parental house where she narrated all the matters to her parents on which the Petitioner No. 1 became furious and forcibly took to his parent house at Churitola, Kanke on 9.7.2016. At the house of the accused all the accused persons were very much inhuman towards the complainant. They behaved with her like their personal servant. All the accused persons on several occasions assaulted her and locked her in a room without serving any food for a day or more. It is further alleged that the Petitioner No. 1 to join his service left for Visakhapatnam on 13.7.2016 along with the O.P. No. 2 and her two minor daughters against her wish where she was again subjected to cruelties by the Petitioner No. 1, hence, she found no option and requested her parents to bring her to Ranchi. Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --5-- Hearing all those things the brothers of the O.P. No. 2 namely Muzibul Ansari and Altaf Raza rushed to Visakhapatnam and immediately left for Ranchi on 30.7.2016 along with the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her daughters and kept them at her in- laws house at Kanke and narrated the behaviour of the Petitioner No. 1 without knowing that the parents of the Petitioner No. 1 are also of same nature and behaviour. It is further alleged that during the stay at the house of accused persons at Churitola, Kanke, the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 was again subjected to various cruelties. She was treated like a maid in the house. She had to work from morning to night serving all the members of the family including the accused no. 2, 3 and 4. Any default on delay in serving them were resulted in assault on her by the accused no. 2, 3 and 4. The Complainant/O.P. No. 2 was not allowed to make telephonic talk with her parents. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of the opposite party No.2. He submits that the husband has filed a petition under Section 7 of the Family Court’s Act read with Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure being F.C.O.P. 1346/2018 before the Court of learned Family Judge at Visakhapatnam on 06.08.2018 for restitution of matrimonial life and directing the O.P. No. 2 to join Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --6-- matrimonial society with the petitioner No.1. He submits that receiving the said notice in the said petition which is still pending as the O.P. No.2 has not appeared. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 has moved for anticipatory bail before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in which the anticipatory bail was allowed with condition that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and the said amount is being paid every month by the petitioner No.1. He further submits that there are general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and the learned Court has been pleased not to take cognizance against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, however, he has been pleased to take cognizance against the husband and the father-in-law and the case of the petitioners are on the identical footing. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the complaint petition the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that now the charge has already been framed and the matter is furthermore fixed for evidence. He further submits the petitioner No.1 is the husband and there is direct allegation against him. In view of that and further development, this Court may not Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --7-- interfere at this stage as quashing are being done in very rarest of the rare cases. 7. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the complaint petition, it transpires that there are general and omnibus allegations against the accused No.2, 3 and 4 and the learned Court has not been pleased to take cognizance against the mother-in-law and sister-in- law accused No.3 and 4 respectively. From the complaint, petition, it transpires that the same allegations are there against petitioner No.2 who happened to be the father-in-law. There are allegations against the petitioner No.1 further of demanding the dowry as well as car or Rs.5 lacs and the allegation of assault is also there. Even the charge is framed, trial is proceeded, if the court comes to a conclusion that the case of interference is made out, the Court can interfere at any stage that has been held in the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kr. Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr. reported in 2019 11 SCC 706. 8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Court finds that to allow the proceeding to continue, so far the petitioner No.2 is concerned who is father-in-law will amount to abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2017 passed in Complaint Case Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --8-- No.2046 of 2016, so far petitioner No.2 namely Neyamat Ali is concerned is hereby quashed. 10.
Decision
This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and framing of charge, so far petitioner No.1 who happened to be the husband of O.P. No.2 is concerned and the learned Court will proceed in accordance with law. 12. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/ AFR Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2019 --9--