1. Sourabh Shandilya @ Sourabh Sandilya 2. Mukul Jajware 3. Putul Devi @ Shyama v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rinki Jha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 1. Sourabh Shandilya @ Sourabh Sandilya 2. Mukul Jajware 3. Putul Devi @ Shyama Devi Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rinki Jha --- …Petitioners …Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner --- For State For the opposite party no. 2 ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate 06/02.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State and opposite party no. 2. 2. The prayer is made in the petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2016, G.R. No. 270 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 3. The First Information Report was registered alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2, namely, Rinki Jha filed an F.I.R. against the petitioners and others, wherein she alleged that she was married with Saurav Shandilya 08.02.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It has been further alleged that the informant was being subjected to torture and harassment just after her marriage with the son of the petitioners in the year 2015 and her parents intervened and brought her to Bokaro. It is further alleged that the informant got information that her husband is contracting second marriage on 25.02.2016 and when she came to her matrimonial home at Deoghar she noticed that preparation is under way for a marriage function and when she tried to enter in her matrimonial home she was forcibly prevented by her in laws including petitioners.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. She submits that the only on the vague allegations the said First Information Page 1 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 Report was registered and there is no mention of any demand of dowry and in spite of that learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and she further submits that the explanation (a) and (b) of the section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. She further submits that the petitioner no. 1 has earlier filed the Matrimonial Case No. 24 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar for restoration of the conjugal life. She submits that the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner no. 1 was being solemnized and false allegations are made that the petitioner no. 1 was trying to enter into the second marriage and she submits that the father- in-law has filed an informatory petition which is at Anenxure-4 and she submits that the petitioner no. 2 has also filed an information petition being a information petition No. 402 of 2015 before the SDM, at Deoghar informing about the apprehension of filing false case. She further submits that uncle of the petitioner no. 1 has also intimated the concerned police station about the marriage of his niece and the false allegations is made in the First Information Report. On this ground she submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet was submitted and thereafter the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that before the family court a compromise was done between the parties and the petitioner no. 1 has taken the opposite party no. 2 from the court itself to the matrimonial house. However, in the mid way he has again left her and the opposite party no. 2 returned back to the concerned court and filed information to that effect as contained in Annexure-B of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that a case is made out in view of that this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Looking to the contents of the First Information Report, it transpires that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband, petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. In the contents of the First Information Report, it is not Page 2 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 disclosed that what amount has been demanded by the petitioners. In absence of that no case is made out under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the First Information Report there are allegations of assault against the petitioner no. 1 who happened to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2. However, so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned there are general and omnibus allegations against them who happened to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. As such the explanation (a) and (b) of section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned are not made out. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759, has held in the paragraph nos. 19, 20, 22, 25, 30, 31, 32 which reads as under: “19. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2 years after the filing of the divorce petition by the Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the domestic violence case by her mother- in-law. Thus, the First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his family members. 20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Page 15 of 36 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the Page 3 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet. 25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. 30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads thus: - “(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or Page 28 of 36 other deficiencies in the same. Page 4 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co- accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, Page 29 of 36 adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage Page 5 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017 would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In Page 30 of 36 all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day- to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.” to cruelty. Mere 8. In view of the above to allow the proceedings so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned will amount to abuse the process of law as such the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance so far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned is hereby quashed. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not quashed the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner no. 1 namely Sourabh Shandilya @ Sourabh Sandilya is concerned who happened to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2 as there are allegations against him and he has abandoned the opposite party no. 2 in spite of the assurance before the learned Family Court, Deoghar. The case against him is made out and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law. 10.
Decision
In above terms, this petition is disposed of. MM (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Page 6 of 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1592 of 2017