Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Lal Agarwal @ Bharat Lal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2018
1.Bharat Lal Agarwal @ Bharat Lal Agrawal
2.Malti Agarwal @ Malti Agrawal ...... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. DeepShikha ...... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2778 of 2018
Sandeep Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Deepshikha ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
(in both cases)
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
(in Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2018)
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
(in both cases)
11/Dated: 20/07/2022
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. In both the cases common questions of law are involved that is why
both the cases have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
3. In both the cases prayer has been made for quashing of entire
criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2017 in
connection with Complaint Case No. 1131 of 2017, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ranchi.
4. O.P. No.2 has filed complaint case alleging therein that she is legally
wedded wife of accused Samir Kumar who is son of petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 2647
of 2018 and her marriage was solemnized on 07.07.2007 according to Hindu
rituals. It is further alleged that after marriage the husband of the complainant
including these petitioners started torturing the complaint for demand of dowry.
The complainant gave birth of a female child. It is further alleged that the
complainant went to live with her husband at different places i.e. Hyderabad,
Nagpur, Banglore and Kulalumpur but her husband continued torture upon her
due to non fulfilment of demand.
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2018 are father-in-law and mother-
in-law and petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2778 of 2018 is brother-in-law. He further
submits that there are omnibus allegation against these petitioners. He further
submits that the husband is not before this Court and entire allegations are against
the husband inspite of that complaint case has been filed against the husband
including these petitioners. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully
covered with judgment in the case of "Geeta Mehrotra & Another V. State of
U.P. & Another" reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 115 (SC) and in the case of
"Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another" reported in
[2013 (1) East Cr. C. 30 (SC)]. On these grounds, he submits that so far as
petitioners are concerned, entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits
there are allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry and for
committing torture upon the complainant/O.P. No.2. He further submits that he
has brought on record deposition of witnesses by way of counter-affidavit. He
submits that all the witnesses supported the complicity of the petitioners. He
submits that photographs have been annexed with the counter-affidavit which
discloses injury sustained to the O.P. No.2. On these grounds, he submits that
these petitions are fit to be dismissed.
7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the material on record and finds that in Solemn
Affirmation of the O.P. No. 2 there is no direct allegation so far as father-in-law
and brother-in-law are concerned. The allegation is against mother-in-law and
husband and admittedly the petitioner brother-in-law who is residing at another
place at the time of occurrence. The implication of the entire family members are
the matter of concern so far as matrimonial cases are concerned. So far as father-
in-law and brother-in-law are concerned, there is no allegation in the Solemn
Affirmation. Relatives of the husband are being implicated which was subject
matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "K. Subba Rao and
others Vs. State of Telenganna" reported in (2018)14 SCC 452. In absence
of specific role attributed so far as father-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned,
it will be unjust to compel them to undergo in criminal trial. Moreover, case has
been lodged after ten years of marriage. Accordingly, father-in-law namely,
Bharat Lal Agarwal @ Bharat Lal Agrawal and brother-in-law Sandeep Kumar are
concerned, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated
08.06.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1131 of 2017, pending in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ranchi, are hereby quashed. Rest
of the cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned, shall
remain intact. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance order so
far as other accused persons are concerned and the trial court will proceed against
them.
8. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of in above terms. As
these petitions stand disposed of, I.A. No. 11820 of 2019 filed for early hearing,
also stands disposed of. Interim order dated 31.01.2019 (in Cr.M.P. No. 2778/2018)
is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
