Jharkhand High Court
Sangeeta Devi @ Puttu Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
1 Cr.M.P. No. 659 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 659 of 2016
1. Sangeeta Devi @ Puttu Devi, wife of Raju Paswan
2. Raju Paswan, S/o Late Lalchand Paswan
Both R/o Mohalla- Mandal Basti, Dhaiya, Bartand, P.O., P.S. & Dist.
Dhanbad
3. Anita Devi @ Jolly Devi, wife of Deena Paswan, R/o Mohalla- Barhi
Khagaul, Devi Asthan, P.S. & P.O. Khagaul, District- Patna, Bihar
4. Asha Devi, Wife of Tetar Das, R/o Mohalla-Ambedkar Nagar, New
Harijan Colony, Khadpar, Near Water Tanki, Sandalpur, P.S. & P.O.
Sultanganj, Dist. Patna, Bihar
5. Sunita Devi, wife of Shambhu Paswan, R/o Mohalla- Rampur
Garikhana, P.S. & P.O. Khagaul, Dist. Patna, Bihar
6. Tetar Das, Son of Late Rooplal Das
R/o Mohalla- Ambedkar Nagar, New Harijan Colony, Khadpar, Near
Water Tanki, Sandalpur, P.S. & P.O. Sultanganj, Dist.- Patna, Bihar
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Pooja Devi, Wife of Suraj Kumar, D/o Shailendra Kumar, R/o Qr.
No.396/E, Block Sector No.3, P.O. & P.S. Bhuli, Dist. Dhanbad,
Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. RS. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : None
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
-----
15/20.09.2021. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party-
State.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken 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 on merit.
2 Cr.M.P. No. 659 of 2016
4. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2016 passed
in Complaint Petition No. 666/2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad, whereby, cognizance under Sections 406, 498(A), 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken
against the petitioners.
5. Opposite party no.2 has filed Complaint Petition No.666/2015 before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioners and
other on 11.03.2015 stating therein that the father of the complainant is the
employee of BCCL, Dhanbad and the complainant/opposite party no.2
married with co-accused Suraj Kumar according to Hindu Rights and
Customs on 23.05.2014 and after marriage she came to matrimonial home.
It was also stated that the father of the complainant gave Rs.3 Lakhs
through bank account to petitioner no.4 towards marriage expenditure and
Rs.80,000/- was given to co-accused Suraj Kumar for purchasing motorcycle
as gift and golden ornaments and other articles were also given by the
father of the complainant. It was further stated that petitioner no.2 Raju
Paswan has taken Rs.5 Lakhs from the father of the complainant on the
statement that the same has been demanded by the petitioners as marriage
expenditure. By way of playing fraud with the father of the complainant,
petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 6 told that co-accused Suraj Kumar is working as
T.T.I. at Nagpur and they also showed forged identity card of T.T.I. It was
further stated that one month after marriage, she came to know that the
co-accused Suraj Kumar is not working in the Railway department as T.T.I.
and she told this fact to the accused persons who accepted the said facts
and they threatened to kill if she will disclose to anyone. It was further
3 Cr.M.P. No. 659 of 2016
stated that on 30.06.2014, all accused person demanded Rs.4 Lakhs for
constructing upper floor of the building and on refusal she was subjected to
cruelty. It was also stated that due to ill treatment by the petitioners, the
complainant became ill and on information her father came on 20.08.2014
and requested to treat the complainant to a doctor but the petitioners
refused to do so and demanded Rs.4 Lakhs on 20.08.2014. The father of
the complainant took her and came at Dhanbad for her treatment. It was
further stated that on 22.02.2015, the accused came at parental house of
the complainant and demanded Rs.4 Lakhs and on refusal they abused and
assaulted her father.
6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners took the Court to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and
by way of placing that he submits that so far as the petitioners are
concerned, there are omnibus allegations against them and no case under
the aforesaid Sections, on which cognizance has been taken, is made out.
He further submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 has filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna and the judgment was delivered in that case on
19.12.2015 directing to resume the conjugal life. He also submits that the
complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2 on 11.03.2015 and the
said complaint case was instituted prior to passing of the judgment dated
19.12.2015 in relation to petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. He further submits that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are married
sister of the husband of opposite party no.2 and their marriage was
performed in the year 1996, 2002 and 2005 respectively and they are
leaving separately at their matrimonial home and they have nothing to do
4 Cr.M.P. No. 659 of 2016
with the allegation made in the complaint case. Petitioner no.2 is brother-in-
law of the husband of opposite party no.2. Petitioner nos. 4 and 6 are
mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 respectively. He
also submits that the concerned court has taken cognizance against the
petitioners vide order dated 20.02.2016, which is also a non-speaking order
and the same has been passed without applying judicial mind. On the point
of general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & another v.
State of Jharkhand & another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.
7. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 35 and 37 of the said judgment are quoted
herein below:
"27. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J.
was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal comprehensively examined
the legal position. The Court came to a definite conclusion
and the relevant observations of the Court are reproduced in
SCC para 24 of the said judgment as under: (SCC p. 10)
"24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though
wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
great caution and only when such exercise is justified
by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself.
Authority of the court exists for the advancement of
justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice
is brought to the notice of the court, then the court
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the
statute."
28. We have very carefully considered the averments of the
complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at
the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific
allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none
of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.
29. Admittedly, Appellant 1 is a permanent resident of
Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband
for more than seven years. Similarly, Appellant 2 is a
permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have
never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken
place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and her
husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass
and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the
only basis to file this complaint against the appellants.
Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be
an abuse of the process of law.
xxx xxx xxx
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the
real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of
husband's close relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required
to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
xxx xxx xxx
37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by
the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is
also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal
trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even
ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out
the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large
number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the
legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities
and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration the informed
public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and
make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
8. On the same point, learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra &
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another , reported in (2012) 10
SCC 741.
9. Paragraphs 14, 15, 20, 21 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted
herein below:
"14. On a perusal of the complaint and other materials on
record as also analysis of the arguments advanced by the
contesting parties in the light of the settled principles of law
reflected in a catena of decisions, it is apparent that the High
Court has not applied its mind to the question as to whether
the case was fit to be quashed against the appellants and has
merely disposed of the petition granting liberty to the
appellants to move the trial court and raise contentions on the
ground as to whether it has territorial jurisdiction to continue
with the trial in the light of the averment that no part of the
cause of action had arisen at Allahabad and the entire incident
even as per the FIR had taken place at Faridabad.
15. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during
the pendency of this case, Respondent 2 complainant has
obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband
Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind
whether any case could be held to have been made out
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are
the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant's
ex-husband. The facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate
that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji
Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be
constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no
ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of
the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra
appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to
her in-laws' house after her wedding, she has alleged physical
and mental torture by stating in general that she had been
ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the
whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation
against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as
to how they could be implicated in the mutual bickering
between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra,
including his parents.
xxx xxx xxx
20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of
the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra
except casual reference of their names which have been
included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of
the family members in a matrimonial dispute without
allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify
taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out
of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire
family members of the household in the domestic quarrel
taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens
soon after the wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that
the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out
of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been
roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and
set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we
entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12)
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But
little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their
'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."
The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes.
xxx xxx xxx
28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to
quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any
material which could be held to be constituting any offence
against these two appellants. Merely by making a general
allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental
torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even
a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they
could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only
related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we
are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings
insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently
the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The
appeal is accordingly allowed."
10. On the point of cognizance, learned Senior counsel relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL
Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. , reported in
(2013) 4 SCC 505.
11. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
"19. In the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate
has not recorded his satisfaction about the prima facie case as
against Respondents 2 to 7 and the role played by them in the
capacity of Managing Director, Company Secretary or Directors
which is sine qua non for initiating criminal action against
them. Recently, in Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny while dealing
with a similar case, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 429,
paras 38 & 39)
"38. Though Respondent 1 has roped all the appellants
in a criminal case without their specific role or
participation in the alleged offence with the sole
purpose of settling his dispute with the appellant
Company by initiating the criminal prosecution, it is
pointed out that Appellants 2 to 8 are the ex-
Chairperson, ex-Directors and senior managerial
personnel of Appellant 1 Company, who do not have
any personal role in the allegations and claims of
Respondent 1. There is also no specific allegation with
regard to their role.
39. Apart from the fact that the complaint lacks
necessary ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read
with Section 34 IPC, it is to be noted that the concept
of 'vicarious liability' is unknown to criminal law. As
observed earlier, there is no specific allegation made
against any person but the members of the Board and
senior executives are joined as the persons looking after
the management and business of the appellant
Company."
12. By way of relying these judgments, learned Senior counsel submits
that on the omnibus allegations on the persons, who are not residing with
the complainant, they have been arrayed as accused in the criminal
proceeding.
13. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 took the Court to different paragraphs of the complaint petition
and submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the trial
court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that so far as the
judgments relied by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, those judgments are not applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case as there are allegations against the
petitioners in the complaint petition. By way of referring paragraph 7 of the
I.A. No. 7325 of 2017, which has been filed by opposite party no.2 for
vacating the stay, Mr. Sahani submits that so far as the husband of opposite
party no.2 is concerned, he has moved separate Cr.M.P. No.811 of 2016 for
quashing entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance as
against him, which has been rejected by this Court vide order dated
29.04.2016 and the same was also challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.4509 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated
12.07.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the
complaint petition and solemn affirmation of opposite party no.2. So far as
the petitioners are concerned, it appears that only omnibus allegations have
been made against them by opposite party no.2 in her solemn affirmation.
There are allegations of beating and torturing opposite party no.2 by her
husband. So far as petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are concerned, they are
married sisters of the husband of opposite party no.2 and their marriage
was performed in the year 1996, 2002 and 2005 respectively and they are
residing at other places, which has been disclosed in paragraph 12 of the
petition. Petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of the husband of opposite party
no.2. The complaint petition has been filed in the year 2015. These facts
have not been denied by opposite party no.2. So far as the petitioners are
concerned, they are residing at another place and that has been considered
in paragraph 29 of the judgment passed in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra),
which has been quoted above. Identical fact in the present case has been
emerged.
15. Merely by making a general allegation that the petitioners were
involved in torturing opposite party no. 2 are amounts to abuse of process
of law and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the judgment passed in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra (supra), which has been quoted above. It is an admitted
fact that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are married sisters of the husband of
opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law of the husband
of opposite party no.2. The allegations against mother-in-law and father-in-
law are also omnibus in nature. The case of husband of opposite party no.2
for quashing entire criminal proceeding has already been rejected by this
Court and that will be the subject matter of the trial. So far as the
petitioners are concerned, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2016 passed in Complaint Petition No.
666/2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is hereby
quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned.
17. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
18. Interim order dated 07.04.2016 stands vacated.
19. Consequently, I.A. No. 7325 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
