The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 697 of 2023 1. Vinita Singh, aged 26 yrs, W/o Late Biswajeet Singh, R/o: Plot No: S1, City Centre, Near Jai Jawan petrol Pump, P.S: Sector- IV, Distt: Bokaro. 2. Shiv Nath Singh @ Sheonath Singh aged 73 yrs, S/O Late K.D Singh. 3. Parvati Devia @ Asha Singh aged about 71 yrs, W/O Shiv Nath Singh. 4. Vishal Singh aged 49 yrs, S/O Sheo Nath Singh 5. Mala Devi @ Anupma Singh, Aged 48 yrs, W/o: Vishal Singh. 6. Vikash Singh aged about 48 years, S/o Sheo Nath Singh. Petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 R/o Luby Circular Road, Manoram Nagar, P.O. & P.S: Dhanbad, Distt Dhanbad. 7. Bhola Singh @ Bhola @ Bhola Kumar aged 31 yrs, S/o: Nand Kishore Singh R/o Near T.O.P, Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas Mufassil, Distt Bokaro. ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Pranity Singh, W/o Sri Vivek Singh, R/o City Centre, Sector- IV, Plot No. S-1/S-2, P.S. Sector-IV, Bokaro, P.O-Sector-IV, Dist. Bokaro. At present R/o Anugrah Nagar, Dhansar, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. -------- ..... … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : : ------ 07/ 12.12.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G. -III. Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate. For the Petitioners For the State For the Resp. No. 2 counsel for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2023, in connection with Complaint Case No. 5918 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case was lodged alleging therein that the -1- petitioner no 1 is Gotni of the complainant and it is alleged that the complainant filed a complaint case against her husband and father-in- law under section498A of IPC and also a domestic violence case against her husband and she started living in terms of order passed in domestic violence case at Bokaro and Petitioner no:1 and her husband Biswajeet Singh tried to oust her from the home and abused and assaulted her for which, a report was given to local police and the husband of the Petitioner No:1 gave a bond. It is further alleged that another brother-in-law of the complainant lives at Australia and had given Rs-20 lac by transfer in the account of Samarjeet Singh Gas company, which was a loan taken by the husband of the Petitioner no :1 for doing business of MRI Diagnostic Centre, Modular Kitchen and the amount was to be refunded and the petitioner no: I was in the knowledge of this fact. It is also alleged that the entire business of the family is in the control of petitioner no: 1 and her husband. When the loan amount was demanded from petitioner no:1 and her husband, they made excuses and did not return the amount. The petitioner no 1 bought a flat at Hirapur Dhanbad worth Rs-25 lacs and also a house at Kolkata by her and her husband worth Rs-30 lacs. It is further alleged that the entire business profits come to around Rs-50 lac. Since, the father-in- law of the complainant became old the petitioner no 1 and her husband got some paper signed by him which may be converted into valuable security. It is alleged that the husband of petitioner no:1 Biswajeet Singh died on 27.01.2021 and all other accused persons hatched up a conspiracy to capture the property and petitioner no 1 lodged an F.I.R at Sector-IV Police Station Bokaro, under 498A IPC and others in which the complainant and others have been granted Anticipatory Bail. Further, it is alleged that the accused persons came to the house of the complainant on 08.05.2022 at about 2:00 pm for settling the dispute amicably, but it is alleged that they started threatening and abusing the complainant. It is also mentioned that the accused asked to transfer the license of M/s Samarjeet Gas Agency in her name and refused to return the aforesaid loan amount. It is also alleged that the accused namely Pranity Singh and Vinita Singh caught the hair of the complainant and -2- trashed her on ground. It is also alleged that the witnesses mentioned in the Complaint case were also assaulted. On hue and cry raised by the complainant, the accused fled away. 4. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against these petitioners. He submits that the case is malicious in nature and the same has been filed for wrecking vengeance upon the petitioners and also for the reason to exert pressure upon the petitioners to leave their respective claim over the property, which is between the petitioners’s side and the respondent No. 2 side.. He further submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the sister-in-law, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5 is wife of petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 7 is a staff of petitioner No. 1. He submits that both the sides are family members and accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the family members of Vinita Singh, who is wife of late Biswajeet Singh. He further submits that for the Gas agency in question, the petitioners side has also filed a case against the respondent No. 2 and others, being Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 141 of 2021 for the same allegation and the Co-ordinate bench of this court by order dated 18.01.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1024 of 2022 has quashed the entire criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the basis of the complaint case. 6. Mr. Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there and further the learned court after looking into the solemn affirmation and the evidence of the enquiry witness has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that at this stage, this court may not interfere in the matter and further the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is the subject matter of trial only. 7. In course of arguments, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has produced the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this court dated 18.01.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No. -3- 1024 of 2022. In the contents of the said judgment, the allegations are almost same in the facts of the present case, as both the cases have arisen with regard to dispute relating to a gas agency and both the sides are family members and even the accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the family members of petitioner No. 1 Vinita Singh. 8. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-16 and 17, held as follows:- that “16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus the course of in allegations made matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” In view of the above, it appears that for the same tendency of increased 9. transaction, the complaint case has been lodged by both the sides and -4- the complaint case, lodged by the petitioners’ side has already been quashed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court by order dated 18.01.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1024 of 2022 and the present case is filed by the respondent side. As such, it appears that for the civil wrong, if any, the complaint case has been filed. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the
Decision
order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2023, in connection with Complaint Case No. 5918 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -5-