1. Sunil Jaiswal @ Sunil Kumar 2. Pinky Devi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dilip Kumar Diwakar …Petitioner Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 With Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 1. Sunil Jaiswal @ Sunil Kumar 2. Pinky Devi Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Dipti --- …Petitioners …Opposite Parties (in both the petitions)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners For State For the opposite party no. 2 --- : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advcoate 10/01.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State and the opposite party no. 2. 2. In both the petitions the common question of fact and law are under challenge, in view of that these two petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 3. The prayer is made in the petitions for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2016 arising out of C1 Case No. 470 of 2014 which was converted into Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014 , G.R. No. 1269 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. I.A. No. 6325 of 2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 I.A. No. 6324 of 2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 4. instant The interlocutory applications have been filed for challenging the order of the revisional court dated 19.01.2018 and 03.01.2018 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 122 of 2017 and Cr. Rev. No. 121 of 2017 respectively whereby the discharge order passed by the learned trial court has been rejected by the learned trial Court and the order of the revisional court was affirmed. 5. Learned counsel for the State has got no serious objection. Page 1 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 6. Mr. Sahani, Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the discharge petitions are rejected which was affirmed by the revisional court and this Court may not allow the present petitions. 7. Considering that the interim protection was provided to the petitioners and this matter is still pending, the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed. These interlocutory applications are allowed and disposed. Let these interlocutory applications be treated as the part of the main petitions respectively. Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 with Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 8. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that: "1. It is alleged accused that no.2 demanded Rs. 8,51,000/- for expenses of marriage in between the complainant and accused no.1. Witness no.3, parental grand father of the complainant, transferred Rs. 4,01,000/- from his account to the account of accused no.1 on 17.4.2012. A sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was also transferred on 30.4.2012. Apart from this, jeweleries were also given. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given in cash to the accused no.2, they only accused no.2 gave the date of marriage being 8.6.2012. 2. It is alleged that the parents of the complainant has sold their land and Jewelery and after taking loans from the Bank, as also from close relatives, spent a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the marriage. 3. It is alleged that the marriage was solemnized complainant on 8.6.2012 at Bokaro. The complainant went to her in-laws at Sitamarhi district on 9.6.2012. Accused persons were not satisfied with the jewelery given by the parent of the complainant. 4. It is alleged that this petitioner is posted in Indian Oil Corporation Panipat, Haryana and gets a sum at of Rs.1,25,000/- per month. In the month of June, the complainant with her husband went to Sirdi and Goa and thereafter to Panipat, Haryana with accused no.1. After one week, the complainant returned to Bokaro. In July 2012, the husband came at Bokaro and again took the complainant to Panipat along with other accused persons. 5. It is alleged that day by day, the behavior of accused no.1 was changed and the persons started demanding rupees seven lakhs as dowry. On being refused, the accused persons started torturing the complainant. 6. It is alleged that on 26.12.2012, the complainant found the accused no.1 in compromise position with accused no.5. On being protested, accused no. 1 and 5 misbehaved with the complainant. 7. It is further alleged that accused persons were already knowing the relation of accused no.1 and 5. 8. It is alleged that on 29.12.2012, the accused no.1 sent the complainant alone from Delhi to Bokaro by train. Page 2 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 9. It is alleged that on 4.2.2013, the accused no.1 visited Bokaro and on being complained about such behavior of accused no.1, the accused no.1 accepted his guilt and felt sorry by requesting to forgive him. Again the complainant was taken to Panipat. At that time, the complainant was pregnant. On 28.7.2013, the complainant was blessed with a male child, but no care was taken by the accused persons. 10. It is alleged that birth party was solemnized on 12.8.2013 at Panipat. The relative of accused no.1 reached there and misbehaved with the complainant with view to demand additional dowry of rupees seven lakhs. On 15.8.2013, the complainant returned back to Bokaro. 11. It is alleged that at the time of Birth party also, the parent of the complainant gave several gifts including gold of 10 gms. 12. It is alleged that on 28.9.2013, the accused no.1 came to Bokaro and demanded dowry and he returned back on 29.9.2013. In the meantime, accused no.1 and 5 lived together in the quarter of Refinery Township at Panipat, 13 It is alleged that on 31.12.2013, accused no.1, 2 and 3 came to Bokaro and demanded dowry, pursuant to which, Rs. 50,000/- was given. 14. It is alleged that on 25.1.2014, accused no.1 came at Bokaro and returned back to Panipat on 27.1.2014 along with the complainant and others. 15. It is alleged that on 10.2.2014 in presence of the grand parents in maternal side of the complainant, the complainant was misbehaved by the accused persons. 16. It is alleged that on 13.2.2014, the relatives of the complainant reached Panipat, Haryana at and grievances of the complainant were put forward. 17. It is alleged that on 20.6.2014, again filthy languages were used against the complainant by the accused no.1. She was assaulted. The local police station was informed on telephone. However, the police came and sorted out the problems. On 22.6.2014, the relatives of the complainant reached complaint to Panipat the again and made local police station, whereof, the complainant was brought back to Bokaro on 23.6.2014. 18. It is alleged that jewelery and other things were not allowed to take back by the complainant. 19. It is alleged that on 23.6.2014, after the complainant came to Bokaro and get her treated on 24.6.2014 by Dr. Bikash Kumar, who prescribed certain medicines, copy of prescription has been enclosed. 20. It is alleged that the complainant tried to save the matrimonial relationship, but it was unbearable and a miscellaneous application was also filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, but this things were not mentioned. 21. It is alleged that on 16.7.2014, the accused persons demanded Rs. 6,50,000/- as dowry and the same led to assault of the complainant. On 18.7.2014, the complainant was treated at Seva Sadan clinic at Bokaro. On 20.7.2014 also she was treated. On 17.7.2014, the accused Page 3 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 no.1 ran way from Bokaro after beating the complainant. The complainant were threatened that she should not lodge any case. 22. It is alleged that on 18.7.2014, the complainant went to police station, but with no effect and hence the complaint.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Dilip Kumar Diwakar in Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2019 happened to be the husband to the complainant and so far the petitioners in Cr.M.P. 477 of 2017 are concerned they are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. He submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and the case has been registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that how the cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are being misused and the same has been considered by this Court on several occasions. He submits that explanation (a) and (b) of the section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out and as such the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2019 is the husband and even the discharge petition filed by the petitioners in both the cases have been rejected and the same has been affirmed by the revisional court in Cr.Rev. No. 122 of 2017 and Cr. Rev. No. 121 of 2017. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there are direct allegations against the petitioners and in view of that this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the High Courts are very slow in quashing of the proceedings and a case is made out and in such the criminal proceeding may not be quashed. 12. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the First Information Report and finds that so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 who happened to be the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant is concerned the allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature. The mode of torture is not disclosed in view of the sub-section (b) of section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The allegation of demand of dowry is against the husband Dilip Kumar Diwakar and in view of that sub-section (a) of section 498 A of Page 4 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 the Indian Penal Code is not attracted so far as the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 are concerned. 13. The Court finds that there is a direct allegation against Dilip Kumar Diwakar, who happened to be the husband of the complainant who is the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017. 14. On the general and omnibus allegations, the cases are being filed under Section 498 A the Indian Penal Code that was the subject matter in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014)8 SCC 273. 15. Even the distant relatives are made accused in the case arising out of matrimonial dispute as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs The State Of Telangana reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452, the courts are required to be very careful to proceed on a general and omnibus allegations against the family members of the husband. 16. Coming to the facts of the present case it is crystal clear so far the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 are concerned there are general and omnibus allegations against them and to allow the proceeding continue against them will amount to abuse of process of law that too in a case arising out of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which is based on the general and omnibus allegations. 17.
Decision
In view of the above, so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2016 arising out of C1 Case No. 470 of 2014 which was converted into Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014, G.R. No. 1269 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro are quashed. Consequently order dated 03.01.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2017 is set aside. The petitioners namely Sunil Jaiswal @ Sunil Kumar and Pinki Devi are discharged from the case. 18. So far as the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 is concerned, who is the husband and there are allegations against him. In view of such this petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 17.01.2018 is vacated. Page 5 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017 19. These petitions are disposed of in above terms. The learned court may proceed in accordance with law. MM/AFR (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Page 6 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 329 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 477 of 2017