1. Seema Devi @ Seema Sarjana @ Shima Devi aged about 38 years W/O v. 1. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3194 of 2018 ------ 1. Seema Devi @ Seema Sarjana @ Shima Devi aged about 38 years W/O Sri Sanjay Kumar, Resident of village- Kandtari Barkagaon, P.O. Sanrh, P.S. Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh. 2. (Deleted) 3. Binod Kumar Kushwaha @ Vinod Kumar Kushwaha aged about 67 years S/O Late Bishnu Mahto @ Vishnu Prasad Both Residents of Amrit Nagar, P.O. Korrah, P.S. Muffasil, District- Hazaribagh. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand
Legal Reasoning
Hazaribagh has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 being the Nanad (Sister-in-law) and the petitioner No.3 being the father-in-law of the complainant treated her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. The name of the original petitioner No.2 has been deleted from the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition after her death. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that allegation against the petitioners are false and are general omnibus in nature. The petitioner No.1 is a married lady and after marriage, she is staying at her matrimonial house which is about a distance of 32 KMs away from her paternal house and the main allegation of the complainant is against her husband. It is next submitted that all the occurrences took place at Mumbai where the complainant was residing with her husband and the couple were blessed with three children. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next submits that in this case the petitioners have been implicated only for the purpose of wrecking vengeance as they are relatives of the husband of the complainant. Hence, continuation of this case will amount to abuse of process of court. It is lastly submitted that the prayers as made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence 2 Cr. M.P. No.3194 of 2018 punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has observed that where the allegations made against the accused persons of the case are general and omnibus in nature, such accused persons do not warrant prosecution; in paragraph-18, which reads as under: - “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed any particular act on any particular occasion. The allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature of demanding of dowry and driving away the complainant and the children from their house. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the allegations against the petitioners being general and 3 Cr. M.P. No.3194 of 2018 omnibus in nature, the petitioners do not warrant any prosecution, in this case. Therefore, continuation of the order dated 01.05.2014 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1011 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the order dated 01.05.2014 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1011 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.05.2014 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1011 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 11.
Arguments
2. Smt. Fulwanti Devi W/O Sri Manish Prashant Kushwaha, D/O Sri Indra Mahto, Resident of Amrit Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Muffasil, District- Hazaribagh. At present residing at village- Berho, P.O. Holang P.S. Tatijharia, District- Hazaribagh … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P. : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2, but no one turns upon on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated call. 3. 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 order dated 01.05.2014 passed in connection with 1 Cr. M.P. No.3194 of 2018 Complaint Case No.1011 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Decision
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 12. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 11.11.2019 stands vacated. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of August, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 4 Cr. M.P. No.3194 of 2018