1. Shanti Devi 2. Vijay Pathak @ Vijay Kumar Pathak 3. Veena Devi 4 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Ful Kumari @ Chhuni
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 688 of 2013 1. Shanti Devi 2. Vijay Pathak @ Vijay Kumar Pathak 3. Veena Devi 4. Sunita Devi 5. Anita Devi 7. Shyamdeo Pathak Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Ful Kumari @ Chhuni -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners ------ : : : ------ 06/ 01.05.2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the State the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, in spite of repeated calls. Identical was the situation on 23.06.2022 and on that day also, O.P. No. 2 was not present. In that view of the matter, this petition is being heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 328, 307 read with Section 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C-990 of 2011 / T.R. No. 433 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier the O.P. No. 2 lodged Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 77 of 2010, which was investigated by the police, wherein final form was submitted and the petitioners have not been sent up for trial and only the husband of the O.P. No. 2 was chargesheeted, however, on protest, the learned court has taken the cognizance against these petitioners, who happens to be the mother-in-law, brother-in-law (elder), sister-in-law (elder), sisters-in-law (married) and brother-in-law respectively of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that only omnibus and general allegations are there against the petitioners. He further submits that the husband of O.P. No. 2 has left for his heavenly abode. He further submits that the allegations are against her husband and -2- the entire case is filed falsely against the petitioners. He further submits that in the Family Court at Chatra, Case No. 2 of 2009 was filed for mutual divorce by the O.P. No. 2 and her husband Binod Pathak and after filing of the divorce case, both husband and wife were residing separately from 05.07.2008. On these grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that entire proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. 6. In view of above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that admittedly in this case, the case was investigated by the police and final form was submitted and these petitioners were not sent up for trial and the chargesheet has only been submitted against the husband of O.P. No. 2, however, on protest, the learned court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners. Looking into the contents of the complaint petition, only omnibus and general allegations are there so far as these petitioners are concerned, who are mother-in-law, brother-in-law (elder), sister-in-law (elder), sisters-in-law (married) and brother-in-law respectively of the O.P. No. 2. 7. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. Reference may be made to the case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr; reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-14 held as follows:- in “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the -3- trivial statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 8. How Section 498-A cases are being misutilized, was again the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 thereof, held as follows:- increase is a phenomenal in “4. There in recent years. The matrimonial disputes institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with the menace of to combat avowed object harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 9. The cases under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations was the subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr; reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667. 10. How all the family members including the distant relatives are being dragged in the matrimonial litigation was the subject matter in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693, which was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. 11. In the above backgrounds and on perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, it reveals that only general and omnibus allegations are -4- there against the petitioners, who are the in-laws of O.P. No. 2 and furthermore no specific and distinct allegations have been made against these petitioners, as none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general and omnibus allegations against them. 12. Considering the above aspect of the matter, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 328, 307 read with Section 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C-990 of 2011 / T.R. No. 433 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, are hereby, quashed. 13.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)