The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3601 of 2017 ------ 1. Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Sharma son of Samendra Prasad Sharma; 2. Samendra Prasad Sharma @ Samendra Sharma son of Late Raja Ram Sharma 3. Renuka Devi @ Renuka Sharma wife of Samendra Prasad Sharma @ Samendra Sharma 4. Kavita Kumari @ Kavita Devi wife of Munna Sharma; 5. Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi wife of Arvind Sharma; 6. Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Ashok Sharma son of Late Raja Ram Sharma 7. Tuktuk Kumari daughter Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Ashok Sharma 8. Babul Kumar son of Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Ashok Sharma 9. Vijay Kumar son of Krishna Sinha; All resident of East Indira Nagar Road no. 1, Post and Police Station Kankarbagh, District Patna (Bihar); … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Devi daughter of Ramji Sharma and wife of Jitendra @ Jitendra Sharma, resident of Krishna Nagar, Post Kulipara, Police Station Sahebganj Town, District Sahebganj; … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 1 Cr. M.P. No.3601 of 2017 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 order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2017 and also the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.59 of 2017 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that after the marriage of the complainant with the accused No.1 of the case namely Jitendra who is not a petitioner herein, the petitioners demanded Rs.10,00,000/- dowry and assaulted her for which the complainant earlier filed Complaint Case No.619 of 2014. That has ended as there was a compromise. The complainant filed a maintenance case in the family court which was settled through mediation and thereafter the complainant again went to resume conjugal life but after that the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and this case has been instituted for wrecking vengeance. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners of indulging in any overt act and only because they are the relatives of the husband of the complainant, they have been arrayed as accused. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 2 Cr. M.P. No.3601 of 2017 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and the treating the complainant with cruelty. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 that where the allegations made against the accused persons of the case are general and omnibus, such accused persons do not warrant prosecution; by observing thus 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) 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant that earlier there was also a complaint case which resulted in a 3 Cr. M.P. No.3601 of 2017 compromise through mediation in a maintenance case and after that there was resumption of conjugal life between the complainant and her husband; who is not a petitioner before this Court. 8. This Court, after carefully going through the materials available in the record, do not find any specific allegation against any of the petitioners either for demand of dowry or for treating the complainant with cruelty; after resumption of conjugal life between the complainant and her husband, consequent upon the compromise in the earlier case. The allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this complaint case has been instituted against the petitioners for wrecking vengeance only because they are the relatives of the husband of the complainant and the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2017 and also the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sahibganj Complaint Case No.59 of 2017, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2017 and also the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sahebganj Complaint Case No.59 of 2017, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above only. 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 10.09.2018, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of August, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 4 Cr. M.P. No.3601 of 2017