Md. Shahabuddin @ Mithu @ Sahabuddin, aged about 41 years, Son of Md. Suleman v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shazia Khatoon @ Reshma, Wife of Md. Shahabuddin
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 861 of 2019 Md. Shahabuddin @ Mithu @ Sahabuddin, aged about 41 years, Son of Md. Suleman, Resident of -11 Mofidul Islam Lane, 1st Floor, P.O. & P.S. – Beniapukur, District –Kolkata, West Bengal .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shazia Khatoon @ Reshma, Wife of Md. Shahabuddin @ Mithu, Daughter of Md. Mushtaque, Resident of -11 mofidul Islam Lane, 1st Floor, P.O. & P.S. –Baniapokhar, District –North Para (West Bengal) and 20/C Mofidul Islam, Kolkata -700014, P.S. –Baniapokhar, District – North Para, Hal Mokama. At present residing at Resident of Pihra, P.O. & P.S. –Gaonwa, District –Giridih, State –Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2016 in Complaint Case No. 153 of 2016, in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2, being not 2 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 satisfied with the articles of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- for a vehicle (i.e. in total Rs.11,00,000/-), presented at the time of marriage, demanded Rs.20,00,000/- more. When the complainant- opposite party no.2 could not meet the demand of the petitioner and his family members, they treated the complainant with cruelty by assaulting the complainant and forcing her work like a servant and were giving leftover food only to the complainant- opposite party no.2 to eat. There is specific allegation that the complainant-opposite party no.2 was locked in a room for three days after being assaulted. As the complainant-opposite party no.2 could not meet the said additional demand of Rs.20,00,000/-, the petitioner solemnized a second marriage and ultimately on 12th October, 2015, the complainant was dropped at her parents place and she was told that she will not be taken back unless she brings the demanded money. Vide order dated 18.03.2016, the learned Magistrate considering the materials in the record i.e. the complaint, the inquiry evidence recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the three witnesses and the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant found sufficient materials for proceeding in the case as prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Kumar Amit, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The complaint has been instituted 17 years after the marriage of the 3 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 complainant with the petitioner. It is next submitted that since out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the complainant, a son has been born who is studying in 9th Standard, the same goes to show that the petitioner and the complainant were leading happy married life. It is next submitted that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No.71 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights, in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah, Kolkata (West Bengal), after filing of this complaint by the complainant. It is next submitted that the complainant and her son also filed Maintenance Case No. 33 of 2016 against the petitioner in the Family Court, Giridih. It is next submitted that the alleged occurrence of demand of dowry and cruelty has taken place at Kolkata, hence the court at Giridih has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2016 in Complaint Case No. 153 of 2016, in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih be quashed. 5. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned Addl. P.P. and Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance as prayed for by the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party 4 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 no.2 that there is specific allegation against the petitioner being the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2 of subjecting the complainant-opposite party no.2 to cruelty by harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is next submitted that the fact that the petitioner dropped the opposite party no.2 at her parents place in the district of Giridih which constitute that the part of harassment has taken place at Giridih. Hence, it is submitted that this petition being without any merit be dismissed. . 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the inherent power of a Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. It is also a settled in school of law that courts at the place, the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from matrimonial house also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under section 498A IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupali Devi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in JLJR 2019 (2) SC 242, expanded the definition of ‘cruelty’ to be continuing till the shelter of the victim. 7. This Court do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner that merely because a son was born out of the wedlock more than a decade ago is the proof of cordial relationship 5 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2-complainant. More so because, admittedly, his son is not being looked after by the petitioner, hence the son as well as the complainant-opposite party no.2 has filed a case for maintenance, which is no doubt a proof that the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no.2 were not leading a happy conjugal life. Thus when there is ample material to suggest that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2 treated her with cruelty by harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.20,00,000/-. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, since the last cause of action for complaint has occurred on 12th October, 2015 and the complaint was filed on 28.01.2016 and the order to issue process has been passed on 18.03.2016, this Court do not find any merit in the contention that the cognizance has been taken after lapse of the period of limitation and as the part of the harassment has taken place at Giridih and otherwise also, the complainant has taken shelter at Giridih after being driven away from her matrimonial house, hence, this Court do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the court of Giridih do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupali Devi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra). 9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 6 Cr.M.P. No.861 of 2019 10. Consequently, the interim order, if any, passed in this case is vacated. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd April, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)