Puja Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4547 Jhar

                                                     1                   Cr.M.P. No. 445 of 2017


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   Cr.M.P. No. 445 of 2017
             1.   Puja Devi, W/o Ranjit Ram, D/o Late Sukhdeo Das, Village Ranipur,
                  P.O. Pachara, P.S. Hasua, District-Nawada (Bihar)
             2.   Moharil Rabidas @ Moharail Das, S/o Brahmadeo Rabi Das, Village
                  Bahaldih, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Barora, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
             3.   Rajdev Rabidas @ Rajdev Das, S/o Late Ganesh Rabidas, Qr. No.412,
                  New Colony, Muraidih, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Barora, District- Dhanbad
             4.   Arbind Kumar, S/o Late Bhero Lal Das, Village- Ranipur, P.O. Pachara,
                  P.S. Hasua, District- Nawada (Bihar)
             5.   Kiran Mehra, W/o Arbind Kumar, Village- Ranipur, P.O. Pachara, P.S.
                  Hasua, District- Nawada (Bihar)                   ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Sonalika Kumari, W/o Sujit Ram, R/o Bhittha Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.
                  Kanke, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, correct and present address-
                  Sonalika Kumari, W/o Sujit Ram, R/o at Bhandaridih, P.O. & P.S.
                  Chandrapura, District- Bokaro                     ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----
             For the Petitioners             : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-State    : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
             For Opposite Party No.2         : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
                                             -----

07/14.11.2022. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Rishi

Bharti, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Ms. Nehala Sharmin,

learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1726 of 2016 including

the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2016, pending in the court of the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the accused were

the near relatives of the complainant, accused no.1 (Puja Devi) is the Gotni

of complainant and accused no.3 is the sister and accused nos.2, 4 and 5

are the sisters and husband of accused no.1. The accused nos. 2 to 5 came

to attend a marriage at Doranda, Ranchi and on 09.07.2016 accused no.2

called the informant and asked to come near Hotel Yuvraj Palace, Doranda

and about 06:00 P.M., the complainant with her mother reached there to

meet them and accused no.1 (Puja Devi) who is the Gotni of complainant

does not live with her husband, and use to reside with her sister and sister's

husband-Jijaji, for which complainant insisted the accused no.1 (Puja Devi)

as to how long she will remain with her didi and jijaji instead of living at her

sasural with her husband, the accused no.1, 2 and 3 got hyper and started

abusing and assaulting the complainant for which the complainant fell

down. The witnesses saved tried to save her but accused assaulted the

complainant with an intention to kill, and snatched a Gold Chain worth

Rs.30,000/-. The complainant felt insulted and deeply depressed and when

she went to lodge FIR, the police did not register the same hence she

instituted a complaint case being C.P. Case No.1726 of 2016 before the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Section

325/323/384/379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. At the outset Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that Complaint Case No.1726 of 2016 is instituted by opposite party

no.2 as a counter blast case of C.P. Case No.6445 of 2015 for offences

under Section 498-A, 379, 307, 323, 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, instituted by petitioner

no.1, namely, Puja Devi against the complainant. He further submits that

only to humiliate and harass the petitioners, the present complaint case has

been filed. He also submits that petitioner no.1 is the Gotni of opposite

party no.2, who is the complainant. He further submits that on 13.07.2015,

C.P. Case No.6445 of 2015 was filed by petitioner no.1 against the

complainant and others under Section 498-A and other Sections of the

Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 15.02.2016, opposite party no.2

and others have been called by the learned court by issuing summon and

opposite party no.2 took bail in that case vide order dated 24.06.2016 and

the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant against the

petitioners on 13.07.2016. He further submits that petitioner no.2 is the

witness no.1, petitioner no.3 is the witness no.2, petitioner no.4 is the

witness no.3 and petitioner no.5 is the witness no.4 in C.P. Case No.6445 of

2015, filed by petitioner no.1 against the complainant and others under

Section 498-A and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits

that all these petitioners are residents of Nawada (Bihar), whereas, the

alleged occurrence is said to have been occurred at Hotel Yuvraj Palace,

Doranda, Ranchi. He submits that thus it is crystal clear that the present

complaint case has been filed maliciously. He further submits that in the

identical facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar &

another; [(2010) 10 SCC 673], has interfered and quashed the entire

criminal proceedings. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal

proceedings including the order taking cognizance may kindly be quashed.

5. Ms. Rishi Bharti, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that

there is direct allegation against the petitioners and the learned court has

rightly taken cognizance against them. She further submits that there is no

illegality in the order taking cognizance and at this stage, this Court may not

interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so that the truth will come in the trial.

6. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the

learned court has taken cognizance looking into the complaint and that is

why this Court may not interfere with the impugned order taking

cognizance.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds

that the present complaint case has been filed on 13.07.2016 alleging

therein that these petitioners have manhandled opposite party no.2 in

Doranda, Ranchi near Hotel Yuvraj Palace. Admittedly, these petitioners are

residents of Nawada (Bihar). It is strange that all these petitioners had

come from Nawada to manhandle opposite party no.2. It is an admitted fact

that earlier C.P. Case No.6445 of 2015 was filed by petitioner no.1 against

the complainant and others under Section 498-A and other Sections of the

Indian Penal Code in which opposite party no.2 and others were called upon

and opposite party no.2 took bail on 24.06.2016 in that case and thereafter

the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant against the

petitioners on 13.07.2016. Looking to the complaint case, it transpires that

entire complaint is not affidavited. Thus, the direction and observation of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of

U.P.; [(2015) 6 SCC 287] is not complied with. The case of the

petitioners is also coming within third circumstance of the judgment in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] .

8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1726 of 2016 including

the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2016, pending in the court of the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is, hereby, quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

10. Interim order dated 03.01.2018 stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/