Jharkhand High Court
Md. Aslam Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1801 of 2022
----
1.Md. Aslam Khan, aged about 62 years, son of late Mobarak Khan
2.Tahera @ Tahera Begam, aged about 52 years, wife of Md. Aslam Khan
3.Jeba @ Jeba Bakhtiyar @ Zeba Bakhtiyar, aged about 23 years, daughter
of Md. Aslam Khan
4.Md.Nasim Arshad Khan @ Nasim Arsad Khan, aged about 31 years, son
of Md. Aslam Khan, all resident of Quraishi Mohalla, P.O. and P.S.Doranda,
District Ranchi ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Tarannum Khatun, w/o Nasim Arsad Khan, r/o Rahat Nagar, Bagru Road,
Lohardaga, PO and PS and District-Lohardaga ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. N.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. P.D.Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P.no.2 :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Talat Parween, Advocate
----
5/13.12.2022 Heard Mr. N.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.P.D.Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent State and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
24.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Lohardaga in
Cr.Rev.No.22 of 2021 whereby the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Misc.Cr.Application No.374
of 2021 arising out of G.R.No.542 of 2019, corresponding to Lohardaga
(Mahila) P.S.Case No.28 of 2019 whereby application for discharge from
the charges under sections 498A/34 of the IPC as well as sections 3/ 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act has been rejected, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.
The case has been filed alleging therein that the informant
was married with the petitioner no.4, 3 years back. At the time of
marriage, parents of the informant has provided dowry of Rs.One lac,
got Motorcycle,Freeze and Washing Machine and a cheque of
Rs.1,50,000/- along with other house hold articles. After remaining one
month peacefully the accused persons again demanded Rs.One lac cash
and one Pulsar motorcycle and on refusal the accused persons started
torturing the informant. Thereafter the informant called her father but
the accused persons also misbehaved with him and put the demand
before him. Thereafter the informant went with her father along with her
child her father's house and remained there for 1 ½ years. Her father
when asked her to lodge a case, she initially refused but subsequently
she filed this case as the accused persons did not care about her and her
child. In the meantime, the accused persons lodged a case before the
Family Court and upon settlement on 25.06.2018, she went to her in-
laws house and remained there for 10-11 months where she fell ill and
upon treatment, it was found that there was stone in her stomach which
needs operation. On 17.12.2018, her treatment was done and the entire
expenses were born by her father. Again on 28.05.2019, the accused
persons started torturing her for their demand and ultimately on
29.05.2019, her father took her to his house. On the same day on
29.05.2019, the husband and father in law came to her father's house
and abused and assaulted the informant for their demand.
Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is father in law and petitioner
no.2 is mother in law, petitioner no.3 is sister in law and petitioner no.4
is the husband of the informant/O.P.No.2. He submits that there are
general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and the case is
arising out of matrimonial dispute. He submits that without appreciating
the contents of the F.I.R the learned court has rejected the discharge
petition filed by the petitioners by order dated 14.09.2021. He submits
that the said order was taken before the learned revisional court in
Cr.Rev. No.22 of 2021 and by order dated 24.05.2022, the learned
revisional court has also dismissed the petition. He submits that only
general and omnibus allegations are there against these petitioners and
the discharge order is not in accordance with the law. He submits that in
the section 498A IPC matter, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v.
State of Bihar and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the general and omnibus allegations and has
quashed the proceeding. He relied on paragraph no.22 of the said
judgment which is quoted herein below:
"22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and
in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused
appellants, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the
complaint's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this court in varied instances, that the criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are direct allegations against these
petitioners and charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has
been taken. The discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been
rejected by the learned trial court which is affirmed by the learned
revisional court and there is no illegality in the revisional order.
The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that
after criminal revision order this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has
been filed. He submits that under the garb of second revision under
section 482 Cr.P.C has been sought and there is no illegality in the
criminal revision order.
In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for
the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and on
perusal of the contents of the F.I.R it transpires that there are allegations
against the mother in law, sister in law and the husband of the O.P.no.2
of demanding one lac rupees as dowry and one pulsar motorcycle and
there are also allegations of using filthy language against the O.P.No.2.
There are allegations in the F.I.R itself. The case has been investigated by
the police and charge sheet has been submitted and pursuant thereto
the learned court has taken cognizance. Thus, there are materials in the
charge sheet also and that is why the learned court has taken the
cognizance. In the case where the charge sheet is submitted by the
police, the learned court is required to look into the materials in the
charge sheet and take cognizance. The discharge petition filed by the
petitioner is rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 14.09.2021
and the revisional court has also examined the consistent statement of
the witnesses including the entries of the petitioner and there are
allegation of torture and demand of dowry against the petitioners and
there is no illegality in the impugned order. Moreover, if any injustice is
not done, second revision in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C is not
maintainable. The judgment relied by Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for
the petitioners is not in dispute and in the cases where the F.I.R is on
general and omnibus allegations, the High Courts are rising to the
occasion and interfered in the matter, however, in the case in hand that is
not the fact and there are allegations in the F.I.R. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.
No.1801 of 2022 is dismissed.
Interim order is vacated.
Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
