Amit Singh @ Amit Kr. Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1794 Jhar

                                                     1                   Cr.M.P. No. 121 of 2013


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr.M.P. No. 121 of 2013
                     Amit Singh @ Amit Kr. Singh                  ... Petitioner
                                            -Versus-
                1.   The State of Jharkhand
                2.   Sweety Singh                                 ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

            CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Aman Shekhar, Advocate
            For the State              : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, S.P.P.
                                             -----

05/27.04.2023        Heard Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.

2. On 06.04.2022, in spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on

behalf of opposite party no.2 and the matter was adjourned. When the

matter was taken up today, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent

no.2 and that is why this matter is being heard on merit in absence of

opposite party no.2.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order

dated 10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of

Complaint Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant

has been married to the petitioner on 26.07.2007 at Khalari and after just

one night all accused persons started torturing the complainant making

demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lacs and on refusal the accused persons have

badly tortured the complainant even after the birth of a female child in the

year 2008. It was further alleged that on 25.07.2010, the accused persons

have badly beaten the complainant due to which this complainant has left

the house of the accused persons and till filing of the case, the accused

persons are demanding dowry on phone from the complainant.

5. Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case against her actual

husband namely Brajendra Singh and her actual in-laws being

Complaint Case No.574/1998 at Ranchi under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which after trial,

the learned court has been pleased to acquit all the accused persons in that

case vide judgment dated 23.08.2005 due to lack of evidence because

opposite party no.2 and other witnesses have never turned up for before

charge evidence as she has taken heavy consideration amount from her

husband and now this petitioner, who is far relative, has come in target

of opposite party no.2 as the petitioner is a rich person and opposite

party no.2 has filed the case against the petitioner. He further submits that

opposite party no.2 has first lodged one FIR at Ara (Bihar) on 08.08.2010

with different date and time of occurrence and after lodging the FIR, she

came to Ranchi and filed the complaint case at Ranchi on 12.08.2010 with

different date and time of occurrence with some more allegations, which

clearly shows the malicious intention of opposite party no.2. On these

grounds, he submits that the petitioner is unnecessarily made an accused in

this case.

6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State submits that the

learned court after looking to the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses,

has taken cognizance.

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

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the

contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance.

Annexure-2 is the document, which suggests that one FIR was lodged at

Ara (Bihar) against the petitioner being Ara Nagar P.S. Case No.336 of 2010

on 08.08.2010 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the present complaint case has been filed

at Ranchi on 12.08.2010. Further looking into the contents of the complaint

case, it transpires that there is no allegation of demanding anything by this

petitioner. There are allegations against in-laws.

8. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was aimed at preventing

cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by

facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent

times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly

and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of

marriage, now, more than ever. How all the family members and distant

relatives have been made accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code was subject matter in Geeta Mehrotra & anr. v. State of U.P. &

anr.; [(2012) 10 SCC 741].

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, looking to the complaint case

and earlier case filed at Ara (Bihar), it reveals that there are general

allegations against the in-laws. There is no direct allegation so far as the

present petitioner is concerned, who is said to be distant relative of in-laws'

family members.

10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated

10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of

Complaint Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is quashed.

11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/