Ashok Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1800 Jhar

                                       1



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

Cr.M.P. No. 4146 of 2018

----

Ashok Kumar Jha, aged about 38 years, son of Rajendra Nath Jha, resident of A-58, Laxmi Park, Post Office and Police Station-Nangloi, District and State Delhi. ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Joti Kumari Jha, w/o Sanjay Chowdhary, D/o Kanhaiya Jha, presently r/o Mahajantoli, PO Rajmahal, P.S.Rajmahal, District Sahibganj ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate

----

6/05.05.2022 Heard Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh the learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Satish Prasad, for the respondent State and

Mr. S.S.Choudhary, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

26.11.2018 passed in criminal revision no.61 of 2018, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal whereby challenge to the order

dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S.Case No.87 of 2016,

corresponding to G.R. No.284 of 2016 has been refused and the criminal

revision application has been rejected.

The complaint was filed on 26.05.2016 by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that the same took the shape of the First Information on 10.06.2016, for alleged occurrence having taken place, one at the nuptial home at Delhi regularly since 20 days after her marriage up to 29.9.2015 and then finally on 25.5.2016 at Rajmahal, for which this case has been filed against seven persons lineally as mentioned in the complaint petition(1) Husband, (2) Sasur,(3) Sash, (4)(5) and (6) Sister in laws and (7) Phufha Sasur, i.e., petitioner. Then she has stated that her marriage was performed on 22.4.2015 in which her parents had given

her five bhars of golden ornaments with one ring to her husband worth about Rs.1,50,000/-, silver ornaments worth Rs.15,000/- utensils worth Rs.20,000/- along with other items and Rs.1,75,000/- cash to her husband out of which Rs.80,000/- was transferred in account no.11705077325 of accused No.7 on 24.3.2015 and 20,000/- on 9.04.2015 by two cheques bearing No.022611 and 022612 and rest amount was delivered cash in the marriage canopy.

Then it is further stated that after marriage she went to her nuptial home where she was kept properly for 20 days, thereafter all the accused persons subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for the fulfillment of the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- on the averment that her father is employed in Civil Court and earns a lot, then only they will keep her properly otherwise she will be throttled to death and her corpse will be thrown in river Jamuna and her parents won't be able to do anything against them. Upon which she protested by saying that her father is a fourth grade employee blessed with one another daughter and one son, therefore he won't be able to fulfill their illegal demand. Thereafter the aforesaid accused persons started treating her to more cruelty by keeping her starving and abusing her on every occasion and on falling ill did not get her properly treated, regarding which she sent information to her parents upon which they asked witness Binay Mishra on phone to attend her, then that Binay Mishra came to her sasural and pacified the accused persons, upon which for few days she stayed properly. Thereafter again they switched back to their old behaviour on the instigation of one Parmanand Jha, s/o Sadanand Jha, maternal brother of her husband.

Then, it is also further stated that, in course the aforesaid accused persons threw acid container upon her body for burning her face but she ducked and the acid container fell on the floor which turned white, while two to four drops fell on her cloth resulting in holes. Meanwhile she fell down with fever and on her sasural peoples not getting her treated then on 26.9.2015 on phone she informed her father upon which on 28.9.2015 her father reached Delhi and on 29.9.2015 her father along with witness Binay Mishra

went to her sasural where her father on touching her found her body burning due to high fever and her face having turned red. On seeing her father she started crying, then all the accused persons hurled filthy abuses upon her father and asked him to deposit Rs.Two lacs of dowry otherwise to take his daughter with him. Binay Mishra tried to pacify them but they did not heed to his pleas and in that physical condition after snatching her ornaments and mobile phone and holding her by the lock of her hairs all the accused persons pushed her out of the house. Then she along with her father went to the house of Binay Mishra where her father got her fully treated and in between the aforesaid accused persons did not even came to see her nor contacted her on phone, then she along with her father came to Rajmahal and since then is staying at Rajmahal. In the meantime, she several times talked with her husband and her sasural peoples but they assuring her that all will be well and she believing them stayed at her father's home laboring under the believe that her sasural peoples will take her back.

Thereafter it is alleged that, in the morning of 23.5.2016 her husband and sash Rani Devi visited her father's rented house at Mahajantoli at Rajmahal, where on her asking them to take her back along with them they got agitated and openly asked her to ask her parents to give Rs.Two lacs cash, only then they will take her back with them or told her to rot in her father's house. Her parents also tried to make them understand upon which the accused persons pushed away her and her parents and in the afternoon of 25.5.2016 at 3 hours, after advancing threat of performing second marriage they went away. Then being compelled she has filed this complaint petition before the learned court on 26.5.2016.

3. Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has

been rejected by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal

and thereafter the petitioner had preferred the criminal revision being

Cr.Rev. No.61 of 2018 and by order dated 26.11.2018 the said revision

application has been rejected. He submits that the criminal revision order

is not in accordance with law as the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Rajmahal has not considered that the petitioner is not a relative of the

O.P.No.2 /informant. He submits that no ingredients of section 498(A)

IPC is made out against the petitioner and the allegation with regard to

transaction of Rs.80,000/- in the bank account of this petitioner is false.

He submits that the word 'relative' in terms of section 498(A) IPC has

been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of

Punjab v. Gurmit Singh' reported in (2014) 9 SCC 632 and he relied in

paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment which are quoted

hereinbelow:

"6. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that when a woman dies by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage, her husband or any relative of her husband shall be deemed to have committed the offence of dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or by any relative of her husband. This section therefore, exposes the husband of the woman or any relative of her husband for the commission of offence of the dowry death. Admittedly, the respondent is not the husband of the woman who died and, therefore, the question which falls for determination is as to whether he comes within the ambit of "any relative of her husband". The expression "relative" has not been defined in the IPC. The provision with which we are concerned is a penal provision which deserves strict construction. It is well settled that when the words of a statute are not defined, it has to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. For this purpose, it shall be permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance. In Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the word relative means any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large number of dictionaries give this word relative, in context, same meaning.

7.It is relevant here to state that the expression "relative of the husband" has been used in Section 498-A of the I.P.C. While interpreting the said expression, this Court in the case of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr.(2009) 6 SCC 787 held it to mean a person related by blood,

marriage or adoption. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term "relative" must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word "relative" would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption."

4. Mr. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the O.P.No.2 submits that this petitioner is Phupha sasur (husband of

sister of father in law) and the money in question has been transmitted

in the account of this petitioner.

5. The Court has gone through the order passed by the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal as well as the

revisional court. The revisional court after going through the materials on

record and the arguments of the parties has held that independent

witness namely Najim Rafique Alam has specifically mentioned the name

of this petitioner as one of the person who alongwith others accused has

made demand of dowry from the victim and her father and the victim

was subjected to cruelty for not fulfillment of the demand and this

petitioner has facilitated the co-accused in receiving the dowry even prior

to the marriage. The transaction of Rs.80,000/- is not denied which is an

admitted fact in the part of this petitioner. So far as the judgment relied

by Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case

of 'State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh' (supra) is concerned that is on the

point of relative. Admittedly, this petitioner is having relation with the

informant as he is Phubha Sasur (husband of sister of father in law),

however, these are the subject matter of trial to be proved by the

petitioner. The cognizance has also been taken under section 3/ 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that an

amount of Rs.80,000/- has been transmitted in his account which has not

been denied. How the dowry is deeply rooted in the society is well

known. The society has to find the ways and means for control and to

combat this menace in the society and payment of dowry. Atleast, an

amount of Rs.80,000/- has been transmitted in the account of this

petitioner. So far as section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is

concerned, he may make out his case before the lower court, and in the

case in hand, there is demand for dowry coupled with harassment. The

cognizance has also been taken under section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner can only be appreciated in course of the trial. The Court finds

that there is no illegality in the revisional order dated 26.11.2018. It is

well settled that if there is no injustice made to the petitioner, in the garb

of section 482 Cr.P.C, the second revision is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly Cr.M.P.No.4146 of 2018 is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,