Jharkhand High Court
Rajnath Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2017
Rajnath Tiwari ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Urmila Devi ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
05/Dated: 20/09/2021
Heard Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 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.
This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 961 of 2014 including order
taking cognizance dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Palamau.
The O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint case stating therein as under:-
" The marriage of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 was
solemnized with the petitioner in the year, 1991 and out of their
wedlock, two children were born but only one is surviving.
It is alleged that after getting job, the petitioner fell
into illicit relationship with one Doli. The complainant was ill-treated
and tortured, so she filed several criminal cases against the
petitioner and her in-laws.
It is further alleged that the petitioner has solemnized
second marriage with Doli Devi and they are staying at Ranchi. The
petitioner has filed a Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 2012 which is
pending before the Family Court, Daltonganj, Palamau in which
the petitioner was pressurizing to compromise the case.
It is further alleged that on 07.08.2014, the
complainant was threatened by petitioner and other unknown
persons in court premises.
It is further alleged that on the same day the accused
persons armed with lathi, danda and other weapons came to the
house of the complainant and assaulted the complainant, her
brother and daughter. The petitioner threatened the complainant
not to attend in the divorce case and extorted signature of the
complainant on a blank paper.
On these premises, the complaint case has been filed.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the
basis of complaint, no ingredient of section 341, 323, 504/34 I.P.C. is made out
against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is husband of O.P. No. 2.
He submits that husband filed divorce petition which was numbered as
Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 2012 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
13.11.2016 and decree dated 09.12.2016 rendered by the Family Court,
Palamau. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner in F.A. No. 05 of
2017 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 04.12.2019 allowed the appeal by way of dissolution of marriage
between the parties on certain terms and conditions as contained in I.A. No.
11165 of 2019 in the said First Appeal and decree accordingly was directed to
be drawn on. In para 5 of the judgment dated 04.12.2019, terms and
conditions have been recorded which are quoted here-in-below:-
"4. That, the appellant/husband and respondent/wife, with
their full consent and without any fear/pressure/coercion, have
arrived at an amicable settlement on their matrimonial dispute, and
have agreed for dissolution of their marriage with following mutual
terms and conditions:- (i) That an amicable settlement has been
arrived at between the parties that Appellant would pay Rs.10 lacs
as permanent alimony payable over a period of eight months in
three equal installments, and the Respondent has agreed to receive
Rs.10 lacs as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony
and future maintenance. (ii) That, the Respondent has further
agreed to not claim monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month
which she has been receiving from the appellant till now. (iii) That
the respondent has further agreed to withdraw the Complaint Case
No. 961/2014 which is under stay in Cr. M. P. No. 422/2017 by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.09.2017, which the parties would
get disposed of in view of the amicable settlement between the
parties. (iv) That, after grant of divorce, the Respondent would be
rendered homeless and landless, and as such direction be given for
allotment of Indira Awas (under Pradhanmantri Awas Yojna) in
village Kurain Patra to the respondent, then only order of
dissolution of marriage may kindly be passed. (v) That, the
Respondent also claims for benefits under other government
schemes e.g. Antoday Yojna, Vridha Pension, Yellow Card,
Aushman Bharat Yojna and Ujjvala Yojna, for which she deserves
sympathetic view, then only it is prayed that order of dissolution of
marriage may kindly be passed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as one time alimony
of Rs. 10,00,000/- is concerned that has been paid to the O.P. No. 2. The
document to that effect has been brought on record as Annexure-2 of I.A. No.
4744 of 2020.
Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 accepts this
position that decree has been passed by this Court in F.A. No. 05. of 2017 vide
judgement dated 04.12.2019. He accepts the fact that the amount in question
appears to be paid to the O.P. No. 2. According to him, in view of judgment
passed in the said first appeal, there is no point of proceeding with the
complaint before the court concerned.
Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that
in view of the judgment passed in F.A. No. 05 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Division
Bench, this case can be allowed.
In para 8 of the judgment of the Division Bench it has been
observed that the appellant is required to abide by terms and conditions agreed
on his part and the respondent is also required to cooperate in withdrawal of
the Complaint Case No. 961 of 2014 and disposal of Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2017
pending before this Court.
In view of the observations made in para 8 of the judgment of the
Division Bench, entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.
961 of 2014 including order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2015 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau is hereby quashed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed and disposed of. I.A.
if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
