Jharkhand High Court
Usha Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 643 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 643 of 2014
1. Usha Pandey
2. Ravi Ranjan Pandey @ Ravi Ranjan
3. Sanjiv Kumar Pandey @ Sanjiv Kumar
4. Nidhi Pandey @ Nidhi
5. Vina Kumari @ Vina Pandey @ Beena Kumari @ Beena Pandey
6. Seema Pandey
7. Anu Pandey @ Anu Kumari ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Viva Rani @ Viva Pandey ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
Mr. Ganga Kewat, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
-----
14/08.08.2023 This matter was earlier referred to the Jharkhand State Legal
Services Authority (JHALSA) for mediation between the parties. A report has
been received from JHALSA, wherein, it has been stated that the mediation
failed.
2. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit.
3. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prabhat Kumar
Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR in connection with
Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1931/2013
registered under Section 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh).
5. Subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has
been taken and that was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3664 of 2016,
which was allowed vide order dated 29.06.2016. Hence, the charge-sheet
and order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2014 are also under challenge in
this petition.
6. I.A. No.2649 of 2020 has been filed for amendment in prayer portion
of the Cr.M.P.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency
of this petition, the order dated 01.12.2014 has been passed by the learned
court, by which, charge of offence under Section 498(A) and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has
been framed against the petitioners.
8. It appears that in the said I.A., no order has been passed. Today this
I.A. has been placed, however objection is being made by the learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that the charge has already
been framed, this Court may not allow the said I.A.
9. The Court has taken into consideration the nature of the allegation
made in the FIR as well as subsequent development and also considering
that the order taking cognizance was allowed to be challenged by earlier
order and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the prayer made in the said
I.A. is allowed.
10. Let this I.A. be treated as part of the Cr.M.P. No.643 of 2014.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No.2649 of 2020 is disposed of.
12. Hence, the order dated 01.12.2014 is also under challenge in this
petition.
13. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the marriage of the
informant Bibha Rani was solemnized with Sanjeev Pandey on 27.04.2008
according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the father of
the informant transferred Rs.6 Lakhs cash from his account to the account
of the informant's husband and gave many things to the informant in the
form of gifts and spend lot of money. Everything was well till six
months, but afterward the informant was tortured. The accused persons
used to force to bring money from her father. In the meantime, they
used to assault and abuse her. The informant would tolerate everything.
In the meantime, she became pregnant. She was sent to her father's
house. She gave birth to a baby boy on 04.10.2010. The informant went to
her in-laws house and, thereafter, her father gave Rs.50,000/- to her
husband. When the informant reached there, then the accused
persons demanded that why her father did not give gold and silver to his
grandson. She used to tolerate many tortures and have gone to her father's
house many times. They now demanded Rs.8 Lakhs from her as her
parents was not able to arrange the said amount, she went back to her
father's house. She came to her sasural on 27.01.2013 at the time of
marriage of her nanad Annu. At that time also, the accused
persons demanded Rs.8 Lakhs. They snatched all the jewelleries of the
informant by breaking the lock of the almirah and had a plan to throw her
from the roof of the house. She somehow managed to escape by
locking herself and her son in the room. The informant's father and
other people came there to save her. She then returned back to her
father's house. The accused persons always threatened her and abused
her father and mother on the phone. They said that without money,
she will not be welcome in her sasural and the husband will marry second
time.
14. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1 is a widow and old lady and she is the mother-in-law of the
informant, petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law of the informant, petitioner
no.3 is the husband of the informant, petitioner no.4 is unmarried sister-in-
law of the informant at the time of allegation, petitioner nos. 5 to 7 are
married sisters-in-law of the informant and they are residing in different
States and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the present case. He
further submits that this Court has already stayed the proceeding and the
proceeding is not going on. He also submits that the husband of the
informant (petitioner no.3) has filed matrimonial suit for divorce on
05.05.2013 in which notices were issued to the informant and, thereafter,
the present FIR has been lodged. On these grounds, so far as the
petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be
quashed.
15. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 submits that there are direct allegations against the
petitioners. He further submits that the other petitioners have instigated the
husband of opposite party no.2 and they are involved in torturing the
opposite party no.2. He also submits that in civil case with regard to
maintenance, the husband is not paying the maintenance, however, that is
a separate issue, which is being considered by the competent court. He
further submits that charge has been framed and three witnesses have
already been examined. On these grounds, he submits that this petition
deserves to be dismissed.
16. Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State submits that there are
allegations against the petitioners and that is why, the learned court has
taken cognizance.
17. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is admitted
that petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law,
petitioner no.3 is the husband and petitioner nos. 4 to 7 are sisters-in-law
of the opposite party no.2. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it
transpires that except the husband, who is petitioner no.3, there are general
and omnibus allegations against them. Even the married sisters-in-law, who
are residing outside the State, they have been implicated in the present
case.
18. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute
with pious view for punishing cruelty of the husband, however, nowadays,
the said Section is being misused which has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [(2014)
8 SCC 273].
19. How the cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand &
another; [(2010) 7 SCC 667] . Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the
said judgment are quoted herein below:
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat
of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints
are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The
learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must
discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure
that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains
intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualised by
the complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the
real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of
husband's close relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required
to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if
the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely
long and painful."
20. The entire family members are roped arising out in such type of case
was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta
Mehrotra & another v. State of UP & another' [(2012) 10 SCC 741] .
21. Further, the cases related to distant relatives was further subject
matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State
of Telangana; [(2018) 14 SCC 452].
22. The above mentioned cases clearly demonstrate that the Court at
numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code and increase of tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term
ramification of a trial on a complaint.
23. Coming back to the facts of this case, it appears that the petitioner
no.3 has filed divorce case before the competent court on 05.05.2013 and
after issuance of notice upon the informant in that case, the present FIR
has been lodged on 10.06.2013. Even the married sisters-in-law, who are
residing outside the State, have been implicated as accused in the FIR. So
far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are concerned, there are general and
omnibus allegations except the husband, who is petitioner no.3. Thus, it
appears that except petitioner no.3, rest of the petitioners are unnecessarily
facing trauma of trial.
24. It is well settled if the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
even at a later stage, comes to the conclusion that entire proceeding can be
quashed, that power can be exercised with circumspection, as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
others v. State of Bihar & others; [(2022) 6 SCC 599] .
25. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, so far as petitioner
nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R.
No.1931/2013 including the orders dated 14.07.2014 and 01.12.2014,
pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribagh
(now Ramgarh) are quashed.
26. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
27. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the case of
petitioner no.3, who is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the learned
court shall proceed against petitioner no.3, in accordance with law without
prejudiced to this order.
28. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
