Jharkhand High Court

Shewata Kumari @ Shweta Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2022

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 1020 of 2017

      1. Shewata Kumari @ Shweta Kumari
      2. Manoj Prasad
      3. Rita Devi
      4. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan
      5. Mithilesh Kumar                               .....   ... Petitioners
                                    Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Prahlad Prasad                                 ..... ...      Opposite Parties
                                 --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

      For the Petitioners        :        Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, Advocate
      For the State              :        Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2         :        Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
                          ------

03/ 22.03.2022 Heard Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2014, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1606 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint was filed by the O.P. No. 2 stating inter alia that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 Shewata Kumari was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on 23.06.2012 before the Marriage Registrar, Ranchi. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are father, mother, brother and maternal uncle of the petitioner No. 1 respectively. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 had presented another girl before the O.P. No. 2 for the purpose of marriage before the marriage, but during the marriage ceremony the petitioner no.1 was produced. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members objected, but somehow they accepted the petitioner no.1 in marriage and the opposite party no. 2 accepted the petitioner no. 1 as his wife.

It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner no. 1 after marriage insisted upon the opposite party no.2 to take share from the landed property belonging to his family, but the opposite party no. 2 refused to obey her proposal. The petitioners extended threat also that the opposite party no.2 and his family members will be implicated in a false case. The petitioner no.1

lodged a false criminal case after hatching a conspiracy, against the opposite party no.2 and his family members, bearing Doranda P.S. Case No. 133 of 2012, under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is now pending before the learned Sub-Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that after marriage, on 26.06.2012, the opposite party no. 2 went to join his duty at Barh in the State of Bihar, where he was working as Officer H.R. in NTPC (Barh). The petitioner no. 1 continued the process of abusing the opposite party no.2 and his family members and also extended threat that she will pour kerosene over her body and she will implicate the whole family in criminal case for demand of dowry.

It is further alleged that on 29.07.2012, the opposite party no.2 came to Ranchi, but the petitioner no.1 insisted on her demand to live separately and to demand share from the property belonging to his family. It is further alleged that on 30.07.2012 at 8.00 A.M., the petitioners no. 3 and 5 came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and took away the petitioner no.1 with all her belongings and stridhan. It is further alleged that the petitioners extended threat and demanded Rs.15,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 and his family members and also insisted on the opposite party no. 2 to take VRS from his service. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2012 at 7.30 A.M., the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 alongwith 5 to 6 unknown persons came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and abused him filthily and the petitioner no. 4 instigated on telephone to assault, thereafter the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and some other unknown persons assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fists and kicks. The petitioner no.2 gave a blow by rod on the head of the opposite party no.2, the father of the opposite party no.2 pulled him and saved him as the blow was with intention to kill the opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that on the dictate of petitioner no.1, the petitioners no. 2 and 5 assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and his father and brother and petitioners no.1 and 3 held the mother of the opposite party no. 2 by hair and slapped her.

It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 and his family members raised alarm, thereafter the petitioners went away. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 went to police station, the police did not register any case, thereafter the opposite party no.2 filed a

complaint case before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, under section 384, 387, 389, 323, 347, 354, 506, 307 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi held inquiry and examined the witnesses under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., but took cognizance of the offence only under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the wife of O.P. No. 2 has earlier filed a case, which was numbered as Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 133 of 2012, under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and only by way of retaliation, this complaint petition has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 against the petitioners under the various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that however, the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners only under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that no injury is there in spite of that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. He also submits that the present complaint has been filed in retaliation of previous one with mala fide intention and this Court is competent to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

5. To buttress his arguments, he relied in the case of Vineet Kumar & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 338, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-39 held as follows:-

"39. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which Final Report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings."

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that all the witnesses examined before the court and have supported the case of the complainant. He submits that the wife of O.P. No. 2 unnecessarily implicating the entire family. He also submits that earlier the wife of the O.P. No. 2 had filed a case under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the family members of the O.P. No. 2 and a prayer has also been made to add Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code against the brother of the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that the High Court has discharged the brother of the O.P. No. 2 in that case.

7. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment, relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court has gone through the materials available on record. In the complaint petition there are allegations of using the filthy language and also the allegation of about 5-6 unknown persons assembled in the house of the O.P. No. 2. Particularly in para-16 of the complaint, it has been disclosed as under:-

"16. That on 27.08.2012 at 7.30 AM, the accused No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 along with 5-6 unknown persons who were appearing to be antisocial elements forcefully entered complaint's house and started abusing them with filthy languages and accused No. 3 started shouting as what the complainant side has decided and when the complainant tried to convince them that their demand is illegal and inhuman accused Nos. 2 and 5 instigated by accused No. 4 on telephone started assaulting complainant with fist and kicks and the complainant could not save himself being manhandled by three unknown persons, accused No. 2 gave a blow of go rod on complainant's head when complainant's father pulled complainant and thus saved him as the blow was with intention to kill complainant. On dictate of accused No. 1 complainant's father and brother was also assaulted by accused no. 2 and 5, accused no. 1 and 3 pulled complainant's mothers hair and assaulted her by slap subsequently as halla was raised, the

accused persons fled using threat to fulfill Rs. 15 lakh within 10 days or else they will send complainant and his family behind bar on false criminal cases initiated by the accused persons."

8. In the complaint, filed by the O.P. No. 2 enquiry witnesses have been examined and their statements have been annexed, wherein except enquiry witness No. 4, rest of the witnesses have supported the case of the petitioner with regard to assault. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners put much emphasis upon the statement of enquiry witness no. 4 and stated that he has not disclosed that any assault has been made.

9. The court has gone through the cognizance order, from which, it transpires that the said order is well founded order. The learned Court after looking into the complaint as well as after going through the statements of the witnesses, passed the cognizance order dated 18.09.2014. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Vineet Kuamr & Ors. (Supa) is not in dispute. It is well settled that if the mala fide and malicious proceeding is there, the High Court has to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which depends upon the facts of each case, if the petitioners make out a case of malicious prosecution. There is no doubt, the High Court has to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, but in the case in hand, in view of the above facts and considering the statements of the enquiry witnesses as well as the cognizance order, no case of interference is made out.