The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3056 of 2022 1. Bipin Kumar Sharma, Aged about 51 years, Son of Late Kashi nath Sharma @ Kashi Sharma. 2. Dhananjay Sharma, Aged about 28 years, Son of Bipin Kumar Sharma. 3. Nirmala Sharma, Aged about 44 years, Wife of Bipin Kumar Sharma. 4. Lalita Sharma, Aged about 34 years, Wife of Abhishek Kumar and daughter of Bipin Kumar Sharma. 5. Monika Sharma @ Menka Kumari Sharma @ Khushboo, Aged about 32 years, Daughter of Bipin Kumar Sharma. All are resident of Triveni Bhawan, Mangal Bazar, P.O. and P.S. – Jharsuguda, District –Jharsuguda (Odisha) .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nagendra Kumar, son of Late Bachkun Prasad Singh, Resident of Village –Lodna More, Fus-Bangla, P.O. and P.S. –Jharia, District – Dhanbad. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Srivastava, Advocate : Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 1 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022 2. 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 dated 13.06.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/426/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019. 3. The allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners on 15.08.2019 between 3:00-4:00 P.M. trespassed to the house of the complainant, assaulted him by throttling his neck, demanded the key of the almirah, took away gold chain, mangalsutra and three gold finger rings, vandalized the house by destroying the articles of the house, threatened the complainant and his family members, pressurized them to withdraw the case instituted by his son for restitution of conjugal life in family court. Basing upon the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/426/448/506/34 of the Indian penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the unimpeachable document being the Crime Detail Report of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019 in the State of Odisha that the F.I.R. of the said case has been lodged by the petitioner no.4 and in connection with that case, the A.S.I. of 2 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022 Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019 namely Sanjay Kumar Sahu visited the place of occurrence house of the complainant accompanied by the petitioner nos. 4 & 5 and the complainant has not come to Court with clean hands by suppressing this material fact and has instituted this false complaint for wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.298 of 2019 has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/506/307/494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation of the case, charge sheet has been submitted in that case and the Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 has been instituted for wrecking vengeance upon the petitioners. It is next submitted that the M.T.S. No. 587 of 2018 instituted by the son of the complainant has been dismissed as withdrawn on own motion of the son of the complainant namely Abhishek Kumar. It is then submitted that the petitioner no.4 has also instituted a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act Vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 170 of 2019 in which the husband of the petitioner no.4 was directed to pay one time compensation of Rs.30,000/- and also Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance and also of Rs.2,500/- per month as rent for separate residence to the petitioner no.4 and the execution of the same is pending. It is next submitted that in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, continuation of the case will amount to abuse of process of law. 3 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022 Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 13.06.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/426/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 but the opposite party has not filed any counter affidavit and do not dispute the veracity of the Crime Details Report of the Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019, copy of which has been kept at page no. 53-55 of this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is then submitted that since there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners, 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 in the absence of any counter affidavit and any challenge to the veracity of the Crime Details Report of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019, the same remains an unimpeachable document. Perusal of the same reveals that on 15.08.2019 at 1:30 P.M. the Investigating Officer of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019 visited the house of the complainant of Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 along with the petitioner nos. 4 & 5 but the Investigating Officer could not notice any dowry article for seizure and the petitioner no. 4 who was 4 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022 accompanying the Investigating Officer of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019 could not identify any of the items or household articles which was given to the in-law’s house at the time of marriage and also prepared the Spot Map. So it is apparent that the Investigating Officer of the said case has spent considerable period of time at the place of occurrence of the Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 from 1:30 P.M. onwards on 15.08.2019. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the allegation made in the complaint that at about the same time when the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 being accompanied by the Investigating Officer of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019 were present in the house of the complainant, they could have done anything in presence of the Investigating Officer of another case who is also a police officer, more so because the complainant has not come to Court with clean hands by suppressing the material facts of the visit to the place of occurrence house by the petitioner nos. 4 & 5 accompanied by the Investigating Officer of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the complaint has been instituted for wrecking vengeance, hence the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 13.06.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/426/ 448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal 5 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022 proceeding of the said Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 13.06.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/426/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case No. 2507 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- 6 Cr.M.P. No.3056 of 2022