Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3242 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3242 of 2017
1. Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar, son of Rameshwar Singh
2. Pratima Devi @ Pratima Singh @ Pramima Devi, wife of Santosh Singh
@ Santosh Kumar
All residents of Bajrang Nagar, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Pushpa Devi, wife of Anil Kumar, daughter of Ram Sewak Singh,
resident of Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
06/30.06.2022. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated
13.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribag
whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and summon
has been issued against the petitioners as well as for quashing entire
criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.905/2016, so far
as these petitioners are concerned.
3. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein
that she is the married wife of accused no.1 Anil Kumar Singh and the
marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2014. At the time of marriage,
Rs.6,50,000/- was given to the accused persons in dowry. It was further
alleged that after marriage the complainant came to her Sasural where she
noticed peculiar behaviour including her Jetthani, Nanad and husband. It
was also alleged that on the first night of the marriage, the Jethani of the
complainant told the husband of the complainant to tell the complainant all
the facts and thereafter her husband told the complainant to bring at least
Rs.10,00,000/- from her Naihar else he will leave her. It was further alleged
that after some days, the accused persons made a fun that she is not a lady
and these two petitioners told either to kill the complainant or to abandon
her. On 25.04.2014, the complainant came back to her Naihar along with
her father but at that time also the accused persons demanded
Rs.10,00,000/-. It was also alleged that on 12.08.2014, the complainant
returned to her Sasural but soon thereafter the accused persons started
torturing her and thereafter she was examined by the doctor and the doctor
found her a fit lady, she was also examined at Ranchi. It was further alleged
that in the meantime, she became pregnant and then her husband along
with Preety Devi and petitioner no.2 Pratima Devi administered poison to
her due to which she became ill. It was further alleged that the husband of
the complainant has illicit relationship with his Bhabhi.
4. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
only omnibus allegations are there against these two petitioners, who are
sister-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and they are residing
in a separate house. He further submits that before 12.03.2016, petitioner
no.2 was posted in Kasturwa Gandhi Balika Vidyalay, Markacho and the
complaint has been filed in the year 2016. He further submits that in the
solemn affirmation, opposite party no.2 has not taken name of these two
petitioners. He draws attention of the Court to the order taking cognizance
dated 13.02.2017 and submits that in last paragraph of that order, the
learned court has observed that there is only a general allegation of physical
torture and thereafter the learned court has not proceeded to take
cognizance under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. On these
grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may be quashed, so far
as these petitioners are concerned.
5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and
the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners looking
into the entire complaint case. He further submits that there is
no illegality in the impugned order. He also submits that the trial is going
on.
6. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the State tried to justify the
cognizance order by way of submitting that reasoned order is there.
7. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court has gone through the material on record and finds that
so far as physical torture is concerned, there are omnibus allegations
against all the accused and considering this fact, the learned court has not
taken cognizance so far as physical torture is concerned under relevant
sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has perused the solemn
affirmation of opposite party no.2 and finds that not even single whisper is
there so far as these two petitioners are concerned.
8. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts have
deprecated to implicate the relatives of the husband when there is no
specific allegation against the relatives. A reference may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana , reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 . Paragraph
6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
"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."
9. In so many cases, 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. Therefore,
upon looking into the entire materials on the record and relevant
circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed by these two
petitioners, it will be unjust to post them to face the trial and it will amount
to abuse of process of law.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, entire criminal proceedings as well as
the cognizance order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Complaint Case
No.905/2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Hazaribag, so far as these petitioners are concerned is, hereby, quashed.
11. It is made clear that this Court has quashed the criminal proceeding
with regard to only two accused, who are petitioners herein and this Court
has not interfered with the allegations of other accused, who are facing the
trial.
12. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
