Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2569 Jhar

                                         1                          Cr.M.P. No. 295 of 2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No. 295 of 2021

          1. Raushan Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Raja Ram Singh
          2. Madhu Kumari @ Madhu Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Raja
              Ram Singh;
          3. Raja Ram Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Ram Sagar Singh;
          4. Avnish Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Rajaram Singh;
              All are residents of Ward No. 15, Itwa, Dumri- Cheria Bariarpur,
              P.O. - Dumri, P.S. -Dumri, District- Begusarai.
                                                                ...... Petitioners
                                       Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. Mithi Singh, daughter of Umesh Kumar Singh, resident of
              Mangrodih, P.O. and P.S. - Mufassil, District - Giridih.
                                                         ..... Opposite Parties


           For the Petitioners         : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
           For the State                 :Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP


                                    PRESENT

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



By the Court:-    Heard the parties.
      2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
         jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to
         quash the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR               in
         connection with Giridih       Mufassil P.S. case no. 308 of 2020
         pending in the court of learned SDJM, Giridih.
      3. The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of the written
         report, submitted by the informant, the said Giridih Mufassil
         P.S. case no. 308 of 2020 was registered. It has been alleged in
         the written report that consequent upon the marriage of the
         informant with the petitioner no. 1 on 25.02.2015, as per Hindu
         rites and customs, from the very next day of the marriage, the
         husband of the informant, i.e. the petitioner no. 1, demanded
         four wheeler vehicle, though at the time of her marriage, her
         father paid Rs. 25,00,000/- and other articles and jewelries to the
         petitioners. After such demand, the father of the informant gave
         his Mahindra vehicle to the petitioner no. 1 for his use, but the
                                       2                            Cr.M.P. No. 295 of 2021




     petitioner   no.   1,   being   the   husband   of   the    informant
     continuously went on demanding a new four wheeler vehicle
     and always used to assault and torture the informant. The
     petitioner no. 2 being the mother-in-law, the petitioner no. 3
     being the father in law, always tried to make the informant fall
     from the staircase by littering        the same with sand and
     sometimes putting oil on the same and on one occasion, the
     accused person became successful also, by which the informant
     sustained injuries. The petitioner no. 4 also used to assault the
     informant and through the petitioner no. 1, was making the
     demand of one Bullet motorcycle to be given by the father of the
     informant and the informant intimated everything to her father
     but her father told the informant that for matrimonial life, the
     informant has to make some sacrifices. It is next alleged that on
     02.12.2019, the petitioners together drove the informant away
     from their house, Thereafter, the informant came to know that
     the petitioner no. 1 has solemnized second marriage and when
     the father of the informant inquired about the same from the
     petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 1 threated the father of the
     informant and admitted that he has solemnized second marriage
     and he will not divorce the informant and dared the father of
     the informant to get the marriage of the informant solemnized
     somewhere else and also threatened to ruin the entire clan of the
     informant and on one or two occasions after being driven away
     from her matrimonial house, the father of the informant again
     sent the informant to her matrimonial house                after being
     beseeched by the petitioners. It is also alleged that after
     solemnization of the second marriage by the petitioner no. 1, the
     informant is feeling suffocated and hence lodged this case.
4.    Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the
     petitioner no. 1 had filed a divorce suit under Section 13 (1) (i)
     (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being the Divorce Case
     No. 94 of 2016 before the Family Court, Begusarai, which was
     dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is next submitted
     that prior to institution of this case, the informant lodged
                                       3                                  Cr.M.P. No. 295 of 2021




Begusarai Mahila P.S. case no. 03 of 2017 involving the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341 of the IPC and Section
3/4 of the D.P.Act, the entire criminal proceeding of which was
challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in Cr.
Miscellaneous no. 48059 of 2018 and vide the order dated
01.11.2018, the further proceeding has been stayed in connection
with Begusarai Mahila P.S. case no. 3 of 2017. It is next submitted
that on the request made by the informant, the petitioners paid
Rs. 1,00,000/- to the informant which was transferred from the
account of the petitioner no. 4 to the account of the mother and
brother of the informant. It is next submitted that the petitioner
no. 4     also filed Complaint Case no. 230 of 2017 against the
informant     involving the offences punishable under Sections,
147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 504, 506, 379, 120B of the IPC.
Learned     senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that
informant filed Original Maintenance Case No. 241 of 2017
against the petitioner no. 1, in which the petitioner no. 1 has
been ordered to pay Rs 25,000/- per month. It is further
submitted that the informant has suppressed the material facts
with respect to lodging of the Complaint Case No. 65 of 2020, for
the said set of offences and in the complaint, she has made an
allegations that on 02.12.2019 she was at Giridih but in the
present FIR, she has alleged that on 02.12.2019, she was at
Begusarai. It is next submitted that the alleged second marriage
of the petitioner no. 1 is false. Relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599, paragraph 18, 19, 20 and 21 of which reads as
under :
    "18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of
      the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
      levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all
      accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating
      her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations
      have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of
      the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance
      of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
      situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each
      accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore,
                                          4                                 Cr.M.P. No. 295 of 2021




         general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out
         on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned,
         since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we
         have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him.
         However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations
         made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
         prosecution.
       19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and
         demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e.

the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.

20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant- accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged." (Emphasis supplied)

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no specific role in furtherance of the general allegations has been made in the First Information Report.

5. It is further submitted that since two FIRs and one complaint case, more or less for the same allegations, has been made by the complainant and the present FIR has been lodged by suppressing the earlier First Information Reports and complaint case, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Giridih Mufassil P.S. case no. 308 of 2020 be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Giridih Mufassil P.S. case no. 308 of 2020 and submits that so far as the complaint alleged to have been filed by the informant,

prior to FIR, is concerned, Section 210 of the CrPC, lays down the procedure to be followed when there is complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence and as there is specific provisions in the CrPC to deal with a situation, when a FIR and a complaint case, in respect of the same offence is instituted, merely because one FIR and one complaint case was filed, in respect of the same offence, the same cannot be quashed, rather the same can be dealt with by the court concerned on being satisfied about the same being filed in respect of the same offence in terms of Section 210 of the CrPC. So far as the contention of the petitioner that FIR being Begusarai Mahila P.S. case no. 3 of 2017 is the second FIR in respect of the same offence is concerned, it is submitted that this FIR was instituted after subsequent occurrence, which took place after lodging of the said Begusarai Mahila P.S. case no. 3 of 2017 on 11.02.2017 and as for subsequent and independent occurrences, the present FIR has been lodged, so the earlier lodging of Begusarai Mahila P.S. case no. 3 of 2017, will not be a sufficient ground for quashing the present FIR of Giridih Muffsil P.S. case no. 308 of 2020, when undoubtedly the contents of the same reveals the commission of cognizable offences, hence it is submitted that at this nascent stage the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered by this court nor a mini trial can be held at this stage to find out the veracity of the defence taken by the petitioners in exercise of power under section 482 CrPC. It is further submitted that the facts of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) are different from the facts of this case. It is next submitted that specially in para 20 of the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in no uncertain terms, has reiterated the principle of law that two FIRs may constitute two independent instances based on separate transactions but as in the said case, the complainant fails to establish specific allegation against the in-laws and in the absence of any clear and specific allegation against the in-laws, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India was of the view that the same will simply result in abuse of process of law. Hence, in the facts of that case, the FIR was quashed but in this case, since there is clear allegation against the petitioners in the FIR, hence the ratio of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case, Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the bar, and after going through the materials in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no quarrel in respect of the principle of law that two FIRs may constitute two independent instances based on separate transactions, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 20 of the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra).

8. Now coming to the facts of the case so far as the filing of the complaint case and a police case for the same offence is concerned, as fairly submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that Section 210 of Cr.P.C envisages the procedure to be adopted, when there is both a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence and in such a case when there is specific provision for the same under Section 210 Cr.P.C, then merely because complaint and a police case has been instituted for the selfsame offence, neither of the same can be quashed on that ground only. So far as the contention of the petitioners that in the written report it has been mentioned that on 02.12.2019, the informant was at Giridih, as mentioned in the complaint but she was at Begusarai, as mentioned in the FIR, is concerned, at this stage this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot give a specific finding as to which one of the two contentions are true and the same can only be determined upon investigation of the case, which is yet to take place because of the order of the stay passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court since 09.03.2021.

9. Under such circumstances, as the contents of the FIR shows that there is specific and clear allegation against the petitioner of

having treated the informant with cruelty. Hence, keeping in view, the settled principle of law in respect of the quashing of entire criminal proceeding, this court is not inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this stage.

10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit is dismissed and consequently, the interim relief passed earlier, if any, in this case, stands vacated.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 3rd August, 2023 Smita /AFR