1. Ram Kripal Ram, aged about 71 years, Male, son of Sri Ram 2 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Radha Kumari @ Kumari Radha, aged about 24
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 1. Ram Kripal Ram, aged about 71 years, Male, son of Sri Ram 2. Mina Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Ram Kripal Ram Both resident of Mohalla-Bageshwari Colony, P.S.+P.O.- Delha, District-Gaya (Bihar) ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Radha Kumari @ Kumari Radha, aged about 24 years, wife of Amaresh Prakash, and daughter of Sri Naresh Singh, resident of Godhar No.6, Near Samuday Bhawan Kenduadih,Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih District -Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Md. Faruque Ansari, Adv. : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl PP. : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh , Adv. Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:-
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure - 1 ) and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 13362/2022 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Dhanbad whereby and where under, learned J.M.F.C. Dhanbad vide order dated 02.05.2023 has ordered to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of the I.P.C and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 1, being the father –in-law and petitioner no. 2 being the mother –in-law , after marriage of the complainant with their son, on 04.07.2020, accompanied the complainant to her father’s house and demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- dowry from the father of the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 complainant but as the said dowry demand, could not be met by the father of the complainant, inter alia, the petitioners, used to perpetrate mental and physical cruelty upon the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 took away the jewelries of the complainant and on 15.10.2022, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons, assaulted, the complainant and drove her out from the house. To a question from the trial court, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioners and her husband, were demanding dowry and the petitioners and the co-accused persons, used to assault her in connection with demand of dowry and after her marriage, the petitioners and her husband, used to demand dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/-. There is also allegation that the petitioners used to taunt the victim by telling her that she has filariasis but never took her for any medical checkup. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. The complainant -opp. party no. 2 has instituted this case after coming to know that her husband has filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for judicial separation. It is further submitted that the complainant -opp. party no. 2 never tried to spend her matrimonial life with her husband and she was insisting her husband to live separately from his parents. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been residing separately from the complainant -opp. party no. 2 since long and the complainant -opp. party no. 2 is residing at her parental house. 5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, para 18 of 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. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 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.”
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and they do not warrant any prosecution against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein in the facts of that case, where there was no specific allegation against both appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Apex Court, held that it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial and quashed the complaint against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after taking into consideration the common knowledge that the matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court, in the case of Md. Imtiyaz Siddique @ Md. Imteyaz Sidhiki & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. and allied cases, passed in CrMP No. 3413 of 2021 dated 09.08.2023 wherein in the facts of that case, where the allegation against the petitioners of that CrMP No. 3413 of 2021 before this Court, was of general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegation has been made against them, this Court was of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceeding of the petitioner of the said CrMP No. 3413 of 2021, will amount to abuse of process of law and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjiv Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. , passed in CrMP No. 1094 of 2016 wherein the co-ordinate Bench in the facts of that case, when the allegation against the petitioner no. 2 to 7 of that case, 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 were general and omnibus in nature, quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 of that case, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2023 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 13362/2022 be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 , on the other hand, vehemently, opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2023 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Dhanbad in connection with the Complaint Case No. 13362/2022 and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners inter alia, on 04.07.2020 of demanding the dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/- and for a continuous period thereafter, having treated the complainant, with both mental and physical cruelty, for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry and there is also specific allegation against the petitioners that on 15.10.2022, when inter alia the petitioners brutally, assaulted the complainant and drove her out from their house, which induced the complainant to commit suicide and submits that, since there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners, hence, the facts of the cases, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, being entirely different from the facts of this case, the ratio of those cases are not applicable to the facts of this case, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that perusal of the record reveals that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners, of demanding dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/-, in no uncertain manner, on 04.07.2020, from the father of the complainant and there is further allegation that the petitioners used to treat the complainant with mental and physical cruelty, for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry thereafter, and there is also specific allegation against the 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2942 of 2023 petitioner no. 2, of having taken away the jewelry of the complainant. Further, there is specific allegation that on 15.10.2022, the petitioners along with the co-accused, brutally assaulted the complainant, causing her injury and drove her out from their house and it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the complainant is staying in her parental house. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as there being direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of the occurrences on 04.07.2020 and 15.10.2022 and other different dates, of having perpetrated cruelty and demanding dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/- therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of this case is entirely different from the facts of the cases- the judgments of which, have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, hence, this is not a fit case, where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2023 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 13362/2022 be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 6th March, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)