Jharkhand High Court
Abhinay Sain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3296 of 2017
1. Abhinay Sain, son of Ramesh Chand Sain
2. Ramesh Chand Sain, son of Late Shri Ramji Lal
3. Sharda Sain, wife of Shri Ramesh Chand Sain
All are residents of CB-292, Naraina, Ring Road, Gali No.17, P.O. & P.S.
Naraina, New Delhi-110028
4. Manisha Sain, wife of Shri Pradeep Sain, resident of Plot No.397,
Scheem No.03, Family Line, Alwar, P.O. & P.S. Alwar, Rajasthan-
301001 ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mukhta Kumari, wife of Abhinay Sain, resident of Flat No.101, Sri
Draupati Apartment, Neel Ratan Street, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali,
District- Ranchi-834001 ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Chetan Krishna Nagesh, Advocate
-----
08/06.04.2022. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. For the State and Mr. Chetan Krishna
Nagesh, learned AC to Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, appearing for opposite party
no.2.
2. This 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.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR and the entire
criminal proceeding bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.655 of 2014, dated
18.07.2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.4061 of 2014, registered under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi.
4. Opposite party no.2 has filed the FIR alleging therein that the
marriage of opposite party no.2 solemnized with petitioner no.1 on
07.02.2013 at Laxmangarh (Sikar), Rajasthan in accordance with Hindu rites
and customs in presence of their family members. After marriage, opposite
party no.2 went to her matrimonial home, situated at Delhi. It was further
alleged in the FIR that at the time of marriage cash and jewellery were
given to the petitioners to the tune of Rs.15 Lakhs, but the in-laws and her
husband demanding Rs.30 Lakhs. It was also alleged that Rs.10 Lakhs and
Bolero vehicle were demanded and due to non-fulfillment of the demand,
she was subjected to torture. The father of opposite party no.2 went to her
matrimonial home and gave Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioners assured
him that opposite party no.2 will be kept properly, but soon thereafter the
demand of additional dowry was made and due to non-fulfillment of the
demand, she was assaulted by fists and slaps. The opposite party no.2
informed her uncle, who was residing at Jhasi, Uttar Pradesh, who went to
Delhi and brought the opposite party no.2 to Jhasi and thereafter she came
to Ranchi. It was further alleged that on 25.06.2013, the petitioner no.1
came to Ranchi and asked the father of opposite party no.2 to permit her to
go to Delhi and simultaneously he also demanded Rs.10 Lakhs and Bolero
vehicle. The father of opposite party no.2 refused to give the same.
Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 left the house of the opposite party no.2 and
hurled abuses. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case bearing
no.1996 of 2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, who
sent the same to Kotwali Police Station to register an FIR under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly the instant FIR was registered.
5. At the outset, Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that now the case has been settled between the parties.
He further submits that in Original Suit (Matrimonial Title Suit) No.204 of
2014, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has
allowed the prayer made by both the parties under Section 13-B of Hindu
Marriage Act, whereby vide judgment and decree mutual divorce has taken
effect.
6. Mr. Chetan Krishna Nagesh, learned AC to Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall,
appearing for opposite party no.2 on instruction from his senior accepts this
position and submits that the case has been compromised and mutual
divorce has taken effect. He further submits that he has got no objection if
this petition is allowed.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that this matter is arising
out of matrimonial dispute and both the parties have obtained divorce under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and also considering the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh &
Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303, there is no societal interest involved in this petition and it is a fit case
to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding bearing
Kotwali P.S. Case No.655 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.4061 of
2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi
is, hereby, quashed.
9. This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.
10. Interim order dated 02.04.2018 stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
