Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1815 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1815 of 2016
1. Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Pawitra Singh
2. Indu Sinha, wife of Vijay Kumar Singh
3. Niharika, daughter of Vijay Kumar Singh
All resident of Mohanthi Chandrauli, P.O. & P.S. Belsand, District-
Sitamarhi (Bihar) ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Mrs. Suruchi Sharma, w/o Sri Sanjeev Kumar, D/o Sri Krishnadeo
Singh, R/o Buxidih Road, Giridih P.O. & P.S.- Town Giridih, District-
Giridih ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
-----
03/17.08.2022. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar assisted by Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the
State and Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance
dated 30.03.2016 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.189 of 2015,
corresponding to G.R. No.1775 of 2015 registered under Sections 498(A)/
494/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
3. The FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that she
was married to Sanjeev Kumar on 26.02.2001. At the time of marriage, her
father had given Rs.9,00,000/- in cash as dowry and spend about
Rs.5,00,000/- but her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the
same. They were eager for more dowry in spite of their rude behaviour, her
father had given draft of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in cash to her
husband in March, 2002, but his attitude could not be changed and she was
being tortured mentally and physically. It was further alleged that in 2005,
her husband had lodged a Matrimonial Suit for divorce but when she
appeared then on 02.02.2007 the husband assured that he will never
torture her and in spite of all that she resided peacefully in her in-laws
house. In 2009, her father died and her mother died in 2012. It was also
alleged that on 10.08.2014 her husband and mother-in-law started
assaulting her for want of dowry on account of which her right hand
fractured and her husband snatched her entire ornaments and on
01.05.2015 her husband came with his one friend at Giridih residence and
by that time brother and sister of mother-in-law started assaulting her and
told that they have got second marriage of her husband solemnized with
one Niharika who is student of Sitamarhi. The marriage was solemnized at
the instance of her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband
of sister-in-law. She has further alleged that her father had purchased one
flat at Ranchi and her husband wants to grab that and said her that if she
wants to survive, execute a deed in his favour and has further claimed that
husband and other in-laws are hurling threat with dire consequences. She
has also stated that her husband is doing some construction work at
Darbhanga. On the basis of the said information, the present case has been
registered.
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner no.1 is the landlord of the husband of opposite party no.2,
petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 is the
daughter of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. He further submits that there are
omnibus allegations against the petitioners. He also submits that the
petitioners are nowhere related with other co-accused persons rather since
Sanjeev Kumar once upon a time was residing as tenant in the house of
petitioner no.1 and on account of good relation between the families, the
informant has dragged the petitioners in the present case. He further
submits that the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and the case has
been registered under Section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal
Code. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., reported in (2007) 12
SCC 503.
5. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
"9. On a reading of the complaint which appears at p. 23 of
the paper-book, it is clear that there is no allegation so far as
the respondent is concerned, so far as it relates to a case
covered under Section 498-A IPC. There is no allegation of
any torture for dowry so far as the present appellant is
concerned. The position is different so far as the allegations in
relation to Section 406 IPC are concerned.
10. There are allegations contained in the FIR relating to the
applicability of Section 406 IPC. If ultimately the prosecution
is unable to substantiate the plea, the results would follow. It
is a case where the power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be
exercised so far as the allegations relating to Section 406 IPC
are concerned. But as noted, the position is different so far as
Section 498-A IPC is concerned. Therefore proceedings stand
quashed so far as it relates to the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC."
6. On the other hand, Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and the
learned court has rightly taken cognizance. There is no illegality in the
impugned order.
7. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that there
is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.
8. The Court has perused the materials on the record and gone through
the contents of the FIR and finds that there are omnibus allegations against
the petitioners. There is no whisper in the FIR about the role played by the
petitioners. How Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is being used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives, as has been considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . Paragraph 4 of the
said judgment is quoted herein below:
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered
in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with
avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a
woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The
fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the
husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a
quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and
grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for
decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics"
published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India
during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC,
9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those
arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951
which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were
liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the
total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the
Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed
under different sections of the Penal Code, more than any
other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-
sheeting in cases under Section 498-A IPC is as high as
93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest
across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial
of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to
result in acquittal."
9. The cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations
when there are dispute between the husband and wife, which was the
subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti
Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another , reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 667. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted
herein below:
"13. The main question which falls for consideration in this
case is whether the High Court was justified in not exercising
its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in the facts and circumstances of this case?
14. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every
High Court has inherent power to act ex debitojustitiae to do
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of court.
Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice."
10. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts at
numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long term
ramification of trial on the complaints as well as the accused. Even in some
of the cases, a person who has nothing with that family is implicated in the
case filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the
matter, the Court is required to proceed against the accused with all
circumspection. Coming to the fact of the present case and on perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 07.06.2015, it reveals that general allegations
are levelled against the petitioners.
11. In view of the above facts and looking into the entire materials on the
record and relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role
attributed by the petitioners, it will be unjust to allow them to go through
trauma of the trial.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 30.03.2016 in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case
No.189 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.1775 of 2015, pending in the
court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is, hereby, quashed.
13. This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.
14. Interim order dated 17.03.2017 stands vacated.
15. Consequently, I.A. No.7316 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
