Dr. Debashis Banerjee vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3435 Jhar

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 1611 of 2011

       Dr. Debashis Banerjee                          .....   ...     Petitioner
                                    Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand.
       2. Babita Banerjee                              ..... ...       Opposite Parties
                                 --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

       For the Petitioner        :        Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
       For the State             :        A.P.P.
       For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate.
                                 ------

10 / 15.09.2021 Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2011, arising out of Complaint Case No. 44 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

4. The complaint was filed on 24.01.2011 alleging therein that the complainant namely Babita Banerjee was married with Debashis Banerjee (the present petitioner) on 05.02.1998 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the father of the complainant had given Rs. 4,00,000/- and other house hold articles to the bridegroom and his family members.

She has further alleged that in the month of June, 1998, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant brought the complainant to her parental house by saying that they would go to Mumbai to live with her son Debasis Banerjee. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 1998, the complainant went to live with her husband in Mumbai, where she was chided by her husband and owing to such behavior of her husband, the complainant got serious mental trauma. During stay in Mumbai, the complainant became pregnant and the husband of the complainant coerced her for abortion, which the complainant did not accept and the petitioner became annoyed and thereafter brought the complaint to her parental house at Bokaro.

It is further alleged that owing to resistance by the complainant for abortion the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister- in-law started to torture the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was sent to her parental house in the month of January, 1999, but the baby in the womb could not be saved and the complainant delivered a dead baby and for which she got treatment from Dr. Arti Shukla. It is alleged that even after providing information regarding aforesaid abortion, no body from her matrimonial house came to see the complainant.

It is further alleged that the father of the complainant took voluntary retirement in the month of March, 2004 and the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant started to force the complainant to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father, so that the husband of the complainant may start a nursing home at Chas.

It is further alleged that for prosperous marital life of the complainant, the father of the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the accused persons. After the sad demise of the father of the complainant on 20.8.2004, the husband of the complainant started to live at Bokaro and since March, 2005 he along with his parents started to give pressure on the complainant to demand Rs. 5,00,000/- from her mother, so that the husband of the complainant may start a nursing home at Chas. In the meantime, the complainant became pregnant and she was blessed with a male child in the month of January, 2006,.

It is alleged that the complainant was put to several types of torture by her husband and in-laws and in the month of June 2009 the complainant was driven out from her matrimonial house after being assaulted by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.

It is further alleged that the relatives of the complainant tried for conciliation of dispute between the husband and wife but all in vain.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegation the complaint case was filed.

5. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by order dated 13.06.2011, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

6. Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint. He refers to paras-11, 12 and 13 of the complaint petition and submits that the complainant herself was not taking care of conjugal life. He further submits that the divorce petition, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

7. On query by the Court, as to whether the petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal order or not, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no instruction.

8. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhransu Sarkar Versus Indrani Sarkar (Nee Das) in Civil Appeal No. 5696 of 2021 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, dissolved the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent.

9. Mr. Sajeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that he has instructions from O.P. No. 2 that she is not ready for compromise. He submits that she has refused to enter into any compromise, as she has been mentally tortured by the petitioner. He further submits that earlier also this matter was sent to the JHALSA, Ranchi for mediation, wherein a petition has been filed by the petitioner for not to pursue.

10. On perusal of the complaint petition, it transpires that there is allegation of torture against the petitioner and there is also a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as disclosed in para-12 of the complaint petition. There is also allegation in para-17 of the complaint petition of using unparliamentary words against the O.P. No. 2. There is also allegation of pressurizing the O.P. No. 2 to abort her pregnancy. As such the order dated 13.06.2011, which is the order of taking cognizance is well speaking order and the concerned Court has passed the said order after considering the prima facie allegation against the petitioner. Medical certificate has also been discussed in the order of taking cognizance.

11. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Subhransu Sarkar (Supra) is of no help, as the subject matter of that case was dissolution of marriage, arising out of the Special Marriage Act, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and that power is not here to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. As the divorce petition, filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no knowledge about filing of any appeal against the said dismissal and the judgment relied upon by him is on different footing, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

14. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. Pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-