Amit Anand v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 2118 of 2016 Amit Anand .... Petitioner ---- -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1955 of 2016 ---- Jaiprakash Bhagat .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners For the State :- :- Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Advocate Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate ---- 10/23.11.2023 In both the cases a common question of facts, F.I.R as well as the order taking cognizance are under challenge and that is why both the petitions have been heard with consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Prabir Chatterjee as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State in the respective cases and Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2. 3. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 2 16.07.2016 by which the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence under section 498A, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relating to Pakur Town P.S. Case No.504 of 2015 correspondence to G.R. No.1161/ 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 4. The F.I.R was registered alleging on the typed information of one Preeti Bhagat against four persons including the petitioner in which it has been stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 6.5.2011 at Purnia where she started to live with her husband. It has been stated that about 7,50,000/- has been given by father of the Jaiprakash Bhagat who is father in law of the informant as expenses of marriage. It has also been stated that Rs.3 lakhs spent by the father of the informant gift in Tilak which includes household articles and ornaments. It has been alleged that after sometime the informant spent her life happily but sometimes after accused persons started to torture and on the abetment of father in law, mother in law and brother in law, the petitioner used to assault her. It has further been stated that due to the wedlock, the informant has a baby aged about three years namely Mahi Anand. It has further been alleged that in- laws started to make demand of Rs.10 lakhs from the informant and also used to commit torture upon her and also gave threat of dire consequence. The informant further stated that she gave information all these facts to her father upon which some persons from her Naihar came in her matrimonial house and requested from the accused persons to not make such demand as their economical condition is not good, and upon which the in-laws have rightly accepted the same. It has further been alleged that about 10-15 days she remain there peacefully but after that the accused persons started to make same demand and used to commit torture upon her. Informant further alleged that because of assault of the 3 accused persons she sustained injuries on her eyes. It has further been alleged that she sustained injuries on her nose. The informant has further alleged that on 17.04.2015 the accused persons assaulted her as a result she sustained injuries on upper portion of her eyes and she was taken to doctor which has been annexed with this F.I.R. Again it has been alleged that on when 17.6.2015 the informant sleeping in her room then her husband tried to press her neck but she managed to flee away and informed about same to her father, upon which her father came matrimonial home and taken the informant with him on 18.6.2015 at Pakur where she is residing with her daughter along with her parents. It has further been alleged that on 13.10.2015, the petitioner came to Pakur and with false allegation started to assault her then her parents and other relatives came there then the petitioner also abused all the relatives of the informant and told that till the payment of Rs.10 lakhs, he will not keep the informant with him. It they tried to send her then he will kill her and after that the petitioner returned to Purnia with and started to send messages with filthy language. It has further been alleged that on 2.12.2015 her husband came to Pakur at R.K. Palace Hotel and on the next day at on send her on about 6 a.m., the petitioner came near the house of the informant with his car and started to abuse the family members of the informant upon which the neighbors came there then petitioner fled away. Lastly, it has been stated that she has apprehension with her in-laws that they may commit any occurrence with her and at present she is residing in her parents’ house at Pakur. Hence, this case. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court by order dated 11.5.2022 referred the matter to the Member Secretary, Jhalsa, Ranchi for mediation between the parties as the matter was arising out of section 498A and other sections of the 4 IPC. He submits that pursuant to that, the mediation has taken place, however, the same was not materialized. He submits that that the FIR was registered against the husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law, however, the police has submitted the charge sheet against the husband and the father in law. He submits that the entire allegations are general and omnibus and if such a situation is there, the Court can interfere. He further submits that subsequently, the O.P.No.2 has filed the Original Divorce Suit No.10 of 2016 under section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and by the judgment dated 11.7.2019, the Family Court, Pakur has been pleased to hold that the O.P.No.2 is entitled for judicial separation and hence, judicial separation was ordered. He further submits that in view of that, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations of assaulting the O.P.No.2 and charge sheet is there. He further submits that in the FIR injury is also found and document to that effect is annexed with the FIR and he submits that in view of that, the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the charge sheet is there and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. 8. The Court has perused the contents of the FIR and finds that there are general and omnibus allegations so far as the father in law namely Jaiprakash Bhagat is concerned. There are allegations against the husband and the entire allegations of assaulting is against the husband only. The allegations so far as other in-laws are concerned, are general and omnibus and it appears that is how the police has not submitted the charge sheet so far as the mother in law, brother in law is concerned, 5 however, against the father in law also the learned court has taken cognizance. This case is arising out of matrimonial dispute between Amit Anand and the O.P.No.2 who are husband and wife and their marriage has been solemnized and pursuant to that the FIR was lodged. Section 498A IPC was introduced with object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives and in a number of cases bed-ridden grand father and grand-mother of husband have also been implicated in the case arising out of section 498A IPC that was the subject matter in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 273. How the cases are being filed in the heat of the moment over the trivial issues without proper deliberation was the subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667. All the family members are being implicated in such matrimonial litigation which was time and again considered and reiterated in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741. In the case of Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was held that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. Relatives of the husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out. This aspect was recently also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaskan Kaushar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there are allegations against the husband namely Amit Anand and the assault allegations are also against the husband namely Amit Anand and so far as the others are concerned, there are only general and omnibus 6 allegations and it appears that is how the police has not submitted the charge sheet against the mother in law and brother in law however the learned court has taken cognizance in the present case against the father in law. 10. In view of above, considering that so far as the father in law is concerned, only general and omnibus allegations are there and to allow the proceeding and to ask him to face the trauma of trial, will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance so far as the petitioner namely, Jaiprakash Bhagat in Cr.M.P. No.1955 of 2016 is concerned, relating to Pakur Town P.S. Case No.504 of 2015, correspondence to G.R. No.1161/ 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, are quashed. Consequently, Cr.M.P. No.1955 of 2016 is allowed. 12. Cr.M.P. No 2118 of 2016 is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance so far as the petitioner namely Amit Anand in Cr.M.P. No.2118 of 2016 is concerned, and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,