Jharkhand High Court

Sanjiv Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2022

                                                     1                   Cr.M.P. No. 1094 of 2016


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1094 of 2016
             1.   Sanjiv Kumar, son of Krishna Dev Singh
             2.   Krishna Dev Singh, son of Late Raghu Nandan Singh
             3.   Smt. Rakhi Singh, wife of Krishna Dev Singh
             4.   Binod Kumar, son of Late Saryu Singh
             5.   Smt. Rita Kumari, wife of Binod Kumar
             6.   Ashish Singh @ Ashish Kr. Singh, son of Govind Singh
             7.   Nitu Devi, daughter of Govind Singh
                  Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are resident of Buxidih Road, Giridih, P.S. Giridih
                  (T), P.O. & Dist. Giridih
                  Petitioner nos.4 and 5 are resident of Koiridih, P.O. & P.S. Sariya, Dist.
                  Giridih, at present resident of Sector 4/B, Qr. No.1056, Bokaro Steel
                  City, P.O. & P.S. Sector-4, Dist. Bokaro
                  Petitioner nos. 6 and 7 are resident of Barjo, P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar,
                  Dist. Giridih                                      ... Petitioners
                                            -Versus-
             1.   State of Jharkhand
             2.   Suruchi Sharma, w/o Sanjiv Kumar, R/o Buxidih Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist.
                  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    : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
             For Opposite Party No.2         : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
                                             -----

06/17.08.2022. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar assisted by Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the

State and Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. At the outset Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners

on instruction submits that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner

nos. 3 and 5 have died.

3. In view of such submission, let the name of petitioner nos. 3 and 5 be

deleted from the cause-title of the petition, in course of the day.

4. 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.

5. The FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that she

was married to petitioner no.1 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.

6. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that petitioner no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and petitioner

nos. 2 to 7 are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law

of opposite party no.2. He further submits that except the husband,

there are omnibus allegations against rest of the accused. He also 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.

7. 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."

8. On the other hand, Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 submits that there are direct allegations against the petitioners

and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. There is no illegality in

the impugned order.

9. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that there

is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

10. The Court has perused the materials on the record and gone through

the contents of the FIR and finds that there are direct allegations against

the husband of the opposite party no.2. So far as rest of the accused i.e.

petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, omnibus allegations are there against

them. 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."

11. 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."

12. 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 relatives and in-laws of

the husband 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 petitioner nos. 2 to 7. However,

there are direct allegations, so far as the husband of opposite party no.2 is

concerned.

13. 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 petitioner nos. 2 to 7, it will be unjust to allow them to go

through trauma of the trial.

14. 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 so far as petitioner

nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Giridih is, hereby, quashed.

15. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered so far as the

allegation against the husband of opposite party no.2 is concerned and trial

against husband of opposite party no.2 (petitioner no.1) will go on.