Jharkhand High Court

Pramod Kumar Chauhan @ Pramod ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2022

                                       1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                              ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1198 of 2016

----

1.Pramod Kumar Chauhan @ Pramod Chauhan, s/o Bhaglu Chauhan

2.Kanti Devi, w/o Bhaglu Chauhan

3.Piro Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari

4.Puti Kumari

5.Kundan Kumar all three d/o and s/o Bhaglu Chauhan

6.Sharwan Kumar, s/o Mahesh Chauhan

7.Bhaglu Chauhan @ Ramdas Chauhan, s/o Ganeshi Chauhan, all residence at Village Chhoti Nagma Paharpur, PO Paharpur, PS Fatehpur, District Gaya (Bihar) ..... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Smt. Sarita Devi, w/o Pramod Kumar Chauhan (petitioner no.1), resident at Village Nimcha Colliery, PO and PS Bindhanbag, District Bardwan(W.B.), now reside at her husband house at Chhoti Nagma Paharpur, PO Paharpur, PS Fatehpur, District Gaya (Bihar) ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate

----

5/23.02.2022 This petition has been heard 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.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the cognizance

order dated 21.08.2014 as well as entire criminal proceeding, pending in

the court of learned J.M., 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P.Case

No.1238 of 2014.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the

outset submits that so far petitioner no.1 who is husband of the O.P.No.2

is concerned, he is not pressing this petition on his behalf as the

quashing application has already been dismissed. He submits that

petitioner no.2 is mother in law, petitioner nos.3,4,5 and 6 are brother in

law, sister in law, brother in law and cousin brother in law and petitioner

nos.3,4,5 and 6 at the time of lodging of the case were 16, 14, 12 and 7

years of age, who are minors and the petitioner no.7 is father in law.

4. The case has been lodged by the O.P.No.2 stating therein

that the marriage took place on 27.05.2013 between the O.P.No.2 and

Pramod Kumar Chauhan @ Pramod Chauhan as per Hindu rites and

custom at the house of the complainant and as per the capacity the

father of the complainant gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- and household

articles. After the marriage, the complaint went to her matrimonial house.

After few days, she was tortured by the above named petitioners for

Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry. It has been alleged that on 04.05.2014

the accused persons thrown away the O.P.No.2 from the house.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far

the other petitioner nos. 3 to 6 are concerned, they were minor at the

time of filing of the case and inspite of that, they have been implicated

falsely in the case. He further submits that so far the petitioner nos.2 and

7 are concerned, there are only omnibus allegation against these two

petitioners. He further submits that now the petitioners and the O.P.No.2

are residing together and there is calm atmosphere in the house.

6. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there are

allegations and rightly the cognizance has been taken under section 498A

of the I.P.C.

7. The Court has perused the complaint petition. In the light of

the contentions made in the complaint petition, the only question which

requires determination by this Court is whether the allegation made

against the in-laws who are petitioner nos.2 to 7 are in the nature of

general and omnibus allegations and in that view of the matter, the entire

proceeding so far the petitioner nos.2 to 7 are concerned is required to

be quashed or not?

8. Section 498A of the I.P.C was aimed at preventing cruelty

committed upon a woman by the husband. It is well known that in

recent times matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased

significantly. In this regard, the High Courts as well as the Hon'ble

Supreme Court have pronounced judgments in appropriate cases and the

land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is "Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihar", (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein at paragraph no.4, 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 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. As to how the case under section 498A of the IPC is being

lodged on the heat of the moment has been discussed in the case of

"Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand", (2010) 7 SCC 667. Paragraph no.30,

33, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is

extremely long and painful."

10. So far as the distant relatives are concerned that has

recently been considered in the case of "K. Subba Rao v. State of

Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452". Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is

quoted hereinbelow:

"6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P."

11. The above judgments have expressed concern about

tendency of arraying of the relatives in the case.

12. On the facts of this case, on perusal of the complaint, it is

crystal clear that the allegations are levelled against the petitioners are

omnibus. The complainant has alleged that all accused have harassed

her and thrown away from the house on 04.05.2020 wherein in the

complaint date of occurrence is made out on 20.05.2014 which itself

falsify the case of the O.P.No.2. There is no specific allegation of torture

mentioned in the complaint so far the petitioner nos.2 to 7 are

concerned. Moreover, the petitioner nos.3 to 6 are said to be minor at the

time of filing of the complaint.

13. This Court has not examined the veracity of the allegations