Johnson Kachhap v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Sarweshwari Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Ms. Geetanjali, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:-

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 to quash the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 599 of 2021 arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020. 2 Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2021

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the husband and the petitioner no.2 being the father-in-law of the informant have treated the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. At the time of marriage, gift items of Rs.15,00,000/- were given by the parents of the informant. The marriage was solemnized on 28.12.2018. On

08.01.2019, when the petitioner no.1 and the informant went for a honeymoon, the petitioner no.1 threatened the informant and instructed her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her father. The informant was frightened by such threatening and informed her mother about the same from Kolkata Airport. The petitioner no.2 also demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the parents of the informant. In the meanwhile, the informant became pregnant and after that also both the petitioners were threatening the informant by telling her that she has become pregnant out of her own will and she shall be responsible for the pregnancy and during her pregnancy also, both the petitioners used to torture her physically and mentally. The petitioner no.2 always used to incite the petitioner no.1. The petitioners threatened the informant to go to her paternal house, unless she meets the dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and on 28.09.2019 at about 07:00 hours, both the accused together told the informant to bring Rs.10,00,000/- and when the informant refused to meet such dowry demand, on

31.08.2019, the petitioner forcibly made the informant sit in a car and dropped her at her paternal place. On 31.08.2019 the petitioner no.2 threatened the father of the informant and 3 Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2021 repeated the demand of dowry and the petitioner no.1 came to the father’s house of the informant and threatened the informant even though she was pregnant. The informant gave birth to a daughter on 03.12.2019 at a nursing home but the petitioners did not come to see the newly born baby but on the other hand questioned, as to how, without their consent, the informant was admitted in the hospital and was treated. With continuous mental and physical cruelty perpetrated by the petitioners, the informant gave birth to a premature baby. The petitioners did not meet the expenses of the treatment of the informant in connection with her delivery of the baby. Police after investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same basing upon the materials in the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and the allegations against them are false. The informant voluntarily left her matrimonial house. The petitioner no.1 has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal life vide O.S. Case No. 546 of 2019 and the petitioner no.1 also filed an Information Petition in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. It is then submitted that the opposite party no.2 also lodged Complaint Case No. 86 of 2020 subsequent to this case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic 4 Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2021 Violence Act, 2005. It is then submitted that the petitioner no.1 has been granted anticipatory bail and the opposite party no.2 has filed an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner no.1. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 599 of 2021 arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020 be quashed and set aside.

5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 599 of 2021 arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020 and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they have committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false is a defence which they can take during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous 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 there is no quarrel that if the allegations made in the First Information Report and the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case and other materials collected during the investigation of the case, if treated to be true in its 5 Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2021 entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false is a defence which they can take during the trial of the case and certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

7. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power under

9. 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 principle of law that the veracity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. cannot be tested in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during the investigation of the case, if considered to be true in their entirety, a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with order taking cognizance dated

25.03.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 599 of 2021 arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 23 of 2020. 6 Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2021

10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)