1. Husnaj Bano @ Husnaaz Bano, wife of Jiyaul Haque Usmani, aged about 56 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Farha Naz, wife of Tanveer Ahmad and daughter
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1870 of 2021 ------ 1. Husnaj Bano @ Husnaaz Bano, wife of Jiyaul Haque Usmani, aged about 56 years 2. Waquar Ahmad, aged about 24 years, son of Jiyaul Haque Usmani 3. Hena Kausar @ Heena @ Niyat Jahan, aged about 28 years, daughter of Jiyaul Haque Usmani All residents of Idrish Colony, Kantatoli; Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Farha Naz, wife of Tanveer Ahmad and daughter of Mustafa Khan, resident of Bariatu, Sattar colony, Gali No. 3, P.O. & P.S.- Opposite Parties Bariatu, District- Ranchi … For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry 1 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 Prohibition Act in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.37 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.3849 of 2020. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 being the brother-in-law (Devar) and petitioner No.3 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant/opposite party No.2, after her marriage with her husband treated her with cruelty by harassing the complainant/opposite party No.2 with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry and such harassment was perpetrated on account of failure of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and her relatives to meet such unlawful demand. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that for not bringing sufficient dowry, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention criminally intimidated the complainant and subjected her to mental cruelty. In the first week of July, 2019, the petitioners demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and coerced the complainant to ask her parents to fulfill their unlawful demand of dowry by selling their landed property and if the complainant fails to fulfill their demand the complainant will face tragic consequences. When the complainant showed her inability to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioners, the complainant was harassed by being subjected to physical, mental cruelty in various ways and was constantly nagged for meeting the unlawful demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. In the month of July, 2019, the father, brother and other relatives of the complainant came to the house of the petitioners to pacify the matter, the petitioners in an non-prestigious and abusive manner told the father, brother and other relatives of the complainant that if they will fail to manage and fulfill the demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- within two to three months, the 2 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 complainant will not be permitted to continue to stay in her matrimonial house and they will get solemnize the second marriage of the husband of the complainant but as the unlawful demand of the petitioners was not met, the petitioners thereafter subjected the complainant to mental as well as physical cruelty in various ways repeatedly, in most inhuman manner in such a manner that the same drove the complainant to commit suicide. A meeting was convened and under the supervision of the convenors of the meeting, the petitioners and their family members gave undertaking not to repeat the wrong acts and deeds in future but after some days the petitioners again perpetrated the cruelty upon the complainant/opposite party with the object of forcing the complainant to meet their unlawful dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. On 15.09.2019 at 10:00 pm, the complainant was brutally assaulted by the petitioner No.1 by catching hold of her hair. The petitioner No.3 was abusing her and slapped her while the petitioner No.2 pinned down the complainant/opposite party No.2 on the floor and the complainant was confined to a room. The husband of the complainant tried to kill the complainant by putting a rope around her neck and pressing her neck and tried to forcibly obtain the signature of the complainant on a blank paper but the complainant somehow saved her life by raising Hulla and managed to escape. By repeated mental cruelty perpetrated upon the complainant, the complainant became depressed. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.112 of 2020 which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi and on the basis of the same, police registered Lower Bajar P.S. Case No.37 of 2020 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police 3 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but the learned Magistrate upon considering the materials available in the record, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Kaushal Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/1078/2023 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and in the facts of that case when the dispute between the parties arose in respect of purchase of a vehicle from the showroom and there was no prior application under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. submitted by the complainant, before making the request to the learned Magistrate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of an F.I.R. and as the dispute between the parties was basically a civil dispute, this court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner of that case will amount to abuse of process of law and quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings; and submits that in this case also as there is no compliance of the requirement of prior application under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., hence, it is submitted that it is a fit case where entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Asgar & Others vs. The 4 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/0253/2024 and submits that in the fact and circumstances of that case where the allegation made against the in-laws of the complainant were general and omnibus in nature and the solitary allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 of that case was that by obeying their words, the petitioner No.1 of that case, used to snatch jewelries of the complainant and dropped the complainant at her paternal house, this Court quashed the cognizance order against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 of that case. It is next submitted that in this case also, the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submit that the observations made in Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) was as an abundant caution. It is next submitted that unlike the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) or the case of Kaushal Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra), in this case, the complainant did not file any application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. rather it is the Judicial Magistrate who after suo moto application of mind has taken a decision to refer to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and the police after conducting investigation, has found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and only after that the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. It is next submitted that as the learned Judicial Magistrate has not taken cognizance of all the offences mentioned in 5 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 the charge-sheet against the petitioners rather has taken cognizance of some of the offences this itself goes to show that there was application of mind on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/S SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2574/2024 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2123/2024) dated 14.05.2024 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:- “9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in “Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others” (2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the said observation has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided.” (Emphasis supplied) Observed that the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) was made by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided and in that case even though the complaint was supported by the affidavit still the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not interfere with the order taking cognizance. 8. Under such circumstances, in this case as has already been indicated above the complainant having never urged upon the court to refer the complaint to police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. but the learned Magistrate itself being satisfied from the materials placed before it that it is a fit case where the complaint was to be referred to police under Section 156 (3) of 6 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 Cr.P.C.; exercised the power under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and the allegations made against the petitioners were found to be true by the police upon investigation of the case and police has also submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. Therefore, under such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that since the learned Magistrate out of her own, has exercised the power under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. without there being any application to that effect by the complainant, so at this belated stage when the investigation of the case was done and the police found the allegation against the petitioners to be true; merely because there is no reference of the complainant complying with the provisions of prior application under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C., the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and set aside. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding the allegations against them do not make out any case against them are concerned, this Court after carefully going through the materials available in the record, particularly the complaint itself, finds that as already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of treating the complaint/opposite party No.2 with cruelty by harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/- by the petitioners, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of this case are not like the facts of Md. Asgar & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) as in this case there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of on several occasions, harassing the complainant/opposite party No.2 to meet their unlawful demand of dowry. 7 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021 Further, unlike the case of Md. Asgar & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra), there is no civil dispute involved in this case. 10. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 11. It is also a settled principle of law that court cannot embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as to that would be the function of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of December, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 8 Cr. M.P. No.1870 of 2021