Anjela Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 1384 of 2018 Anjela Toppo .... Petitioner ---- -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- :-
Legal Reasoning
--- Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate Mr. Gaurav, Advocate ---- 8/21.02.2024 Herad the learned counsel for he petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 2. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 01.05.2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.998 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi. 3. The complaint case is filed alleging therein that the complainant had filed a Complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 998 of 2014 before the Learned Court below alleging therein that the marriage was solemnized with Vijoy Toppo on 27.12.2002 and thereafter out of their wedlock two children one male and one female were born in the year 2004 and 2005 respectively. She further alleged that soon after her marriage the said petitioner was sent to jail in connection with Vigilance case and after the birth of female child the of behaviour the petitioner was changed and the petitioner started obscene act and the petitioner having interest in ladies and girls. It is further alleged that since year 2008, the petitioner hobby of making had developed one new videos obscene films with the and started making complainant either by camera or mobile. And on objection the petitioner used to assault her. It is further alleged that commit un-natural obscene with the 2 complainant. The petitioner wants that his wife should wear mini dresses and tight jeans. She further alleged that in the year 2010, the petitioner caused miscarriage without her consent by mixing some medicine in cold drink. She further alleged that in the year 2011 when he was posted at Gumla, the petitioner developed illegal relationship with his office staff namely Bina Rani Thakur and used to talk obscene words and proposed Bina Rani Thakur for marriage saying "I love you" etc. further alleged that in the month of February, 2013 the petitioner assaulted the complainant and the family member of the petitioner who were present there, not came forward to save her. On 9th-10th April, 2013, the complainant had seen one obscene MMS of the petitioner and Bina Rani Thakur. She further alleged that on 12th April, 2013, the petitioner met with an accident and the petitioner is at Bero Hospital then with the help of her brother, the complainant brought the petitioner at Jagannath Hospital at Ranchi and admitted there for his better treatment. But, the petitioner continued his relationship with Bina Rani Thakur through mobile phone. She also alleged that her husband had opened an office in house related with S.A.R. cases. She further alleged that on 15 April, 2013 she made objection and told her husband not to talk with Bina Rani Thakur then her husband tried to assault her. And when she came down from the stair then her nanad and saas shown her the obscene MMS of her husband. And the petitioner told the complainant that he will divorced her. She further alleged that on 18th April, 2013, the complainant had given written complaint before Mahila Ayog and Mahila P.S. but till today the complainant had not received any report from both the places. The complainant also made complaint to the Commissioner on 4th May, 2013, but all in vain. It is further alleged that she had received one SMS from mobile no. 8084334921 about the petitioner that the petitioner had given Rs. One lakh to the Mahila P.S. and Rs. Five lakhs to Sri Yatendra Prasad (Karmik). She further alleged that from the newspaper had kept Bina Rani Thakur in her house for 3 days. She further alleged that the petitioner had solemnized his marriage with Bina Rani Thakur in a temple of Jai Santoshi Maa 3 situated at Pahari Mandir, Ranchi, and on enquiry the priest of the said temple disclosed that the marriage was solemnized on 31 October, 2013 and also shown the diary in which the petitioner and Bina Rani Thakur had put their signatures and also taken photographs. And accordingly on the basis of such present complaint case was filed against the petitioner and others. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mother in law of the complainant and she is aged about 86 years and suffering from several old age disease and is not able to get down from bed and is completely bed ridden. He submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner and the case is registered under section 498-A and other sections of IPC. He submits that only because she is mother of the husband of the informant, the petitioner has been implicated in the case and learned court has also taken cognizance mechanically. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State and O.P.No.2 have opposed the prayer on the ground that allegations are there. 6. Admittedly, the present case is arising under section 498A and other sections of the IPC and the petitioner is mother in law of the complainant aged about 86 years. It has been disclosed that she is bed ridden. In the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner and only general and omnibus allegations are made and averment is made that she was supporting the son and apart from that, there is no allegation against the petitioner. 7. It has been noticed that in quite number of cases bed ridden grand fathers and grand mothers of the husband and their sisters and brother living abroad are implicated in the case arising out of matrimonial dispute and that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 8. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 4 reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial dispute and dowry death and relatives of husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out. 9. Coming to the present case it appears that the petitioner is aged about 86 years and she is bed ridden and in the complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner and only bald allegation is made that she was supporting the son. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 01.05.2015 arising out of Complaint Case No.998 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi so far the petitioner is concerned is quashed. 11. 12.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. It is made clear that this petition is allowed with regard to the petitioner namely Anjela Toppo who is aged about 86 years and the learned court will proceed so far as rest of the accused are concerned in accordance with law. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,