Jharkhand High Court
Zahida Begum @ Zahida vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1563 of 2019
1. Zahida Begum @ Zahida
2. Md. Karin Khan @ Gullu @ Gulu
...... Petitioners
Versus
...............
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Aquila Begum @ Akila Begum
...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
8/Dated: 19/12/2022
Heard Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
B.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire
criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2018
passed in connection with C/1 Case No. 134 of 2018 pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.
3. O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint petition alleging therein that her
marriage was solemnized with Md. Kasim Khan on 16.01.2016 according to
Muslim customs and out of their wedlock one child has born. In the marriage
her father had given Rs. 4,50,000/- and ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/- as
dowry. It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded further dowry of Rs. 2
lakhs and on non-fulfilment of the said demand the complainant was
subjected torture and cruelty by the accused persons and finally the
complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house.
4. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law aged about 73 years at the time of
filing of the case and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law. He draws the
attention of the court to the complaint petition and submits that so far as
these petitioners are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegation
against these petitioners. He further submits that the case is arising under
section 498-A I.P.C and other sections of the I.P.C. He further submits that
order taking cognizance is also not in accordance with law.
5. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits
that there are allegations against these petitioners and the learned court
has rightly taken cognizance. He submits that at this stage, this Court may
not interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that
cognizance order is a reasoned order.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the court has gone through the materials on record. On perusal of
complaint petition, it transpires that there is no specific allegation so far as
these petitioners are concerned. There are general and omnibus allegation
against these petitioners however, the learned court has taken cognizance
against these petitioners. Section 498A I.P.C. was the subject matter in
several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts.
Reference may be made to the case of " Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar" reported in 2014 8 SCC 273 wherein para 4 the Supreme Court has
held as under:-
"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 I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. 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 quite a
number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested"
8. How all the family members have been roped in such type of
cases was subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Geeta Mehrotra V. State of U.P." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741.
There is no specific allegation so far as these petitioners are concerned. To
allow the proceeding to be continued against these petitioners will amount
abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including
order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2018 passed in connection with C/1
Case No. 134 of 2018 so far as these petitioners are concerned, are hereby
quashed and so far as cognizance and criminal proceeding against the other
accused persons are concerned, is kept intact.
9. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. Interim order
is vacated. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
