Jharkhand High Court

Krishnanand Mishra (Wrongly ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023

                                                      1                     Cr.M.P. No. 2758 of 2016


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 2758 of 2016
            1.   Krishnanand Mishra (wrongly mentioned as Pathak in the F.I.R.)
            2.   Veena Pathak                                  ... Petitioners
                                       -Versus-
            1.   State of Jharkhand
            2.   Anshu Pathak                                 ... Opposite Parties
                                              -----

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

            For the Petitioners       : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                        Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
            For the State             : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2             : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
                                              -----

11/09.08.2023     This matter was referred to the Jharkhand State Legal Services

Authority (JHALSA) for mediation between the parties. The mediation report

is on the record, wherein, it has been stated that the mediation has failed.

2. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit.

3. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State

and Ms. Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.159/2016,

corresponding to G.R. Case No.3469/2016 registered under Sections

498A/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ranchi.

5. Subsequently, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners

vide order dated 10.04.2017 was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3582 of

2018, which was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2018. Thus, the order

taking cognizance dated 10.04.2017 is also under challenge in this petition.

6. The FIR was lodged by one Anshu Pathak, wife of Late Deepak Kumar

has lodged a written report before the Officer-in-Charge, Lower Bazar P.S.

On 18.06.2016 alleging therein that she was married with Late Deepak

Kumar on 08.02.2011 at Heritage Garden, Kokar in which her father had

given Rs.3 Lakhs cash and jewelleries worth of Rs.5 Lakhs and in household

articles and other marriage expenses incurred Rs.5 Lakhs. The informant

has further alleged that just after the marriage, the accused nos. 1 and 3

started abusing and taunting the informant and used to say that her father

had not given her dowry as per demand, therefore, asked to bring more

Rs.5 Lakhs sinice her son-in-law had to establish a clinic in Ranchi. The

informant always said that her father took loan to solemnize the marriage

and at present, he is unable. Moreover, he had to get solemnized marriage

of his two daughters but her mother-in-law (accused no.1) and sister-in-law

(petitioner no.2) used to get her assaulted and abused through petitioner

no.1. It was further alleged that petitioner no.1 used to use abusive words

on characters of the informant and her family members. The informant has

told about this occurrence to her husband when he came to house and then

her husband requested the alleged accused persons not to do such act as

his father-in-law was burdened with many responsibilities. On this, the

petitioners promised not to do such act further. It was also alleged that the

accused Arun Mishra and accused Manoj Kumar also abused the informant

whenever they both came to the matrimonial home of the informant and

used to ask to bring more dowry. The informant has stated that she kept

mum considering the prestige of her late husband who used to say that

everything would be proper and his family members would accept them. In

the meantime on 17.02.2016, her husband namely Deepak Kumar died of

his kidney problem, thereafter, the accused persons started to say that the

informant had killed her husband and the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 thrown

her out of the house.

7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law (Nandoi) and petitioner

no.2 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant. The petitioners are living in

Ghutuwa, Ramgarh. The petitioner no.1 is a doctor and is in service under

the Bihar Government and petitioner no.2 runs a school at Ghutuwa,

Ramgarh. In this background, the petitioners have not frequently met with

the informant. He further submits that the petitioners have been made

accused earlier Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.169/2016 dated

11.06.2016 was instituted by the informant of the present case for the

offence punishable under Sections 454/379/427/34 of the Indian Penal

Code and in that case, after investigation the police has found the case false

and submitted final form in favour of the petitioners. He also submits that

on 11.06.2016 earlier FIR was instituted and subsequently on 18.06.2016,

the informant has lodged another FIR, which is the present case. He

submits that the allegations are made of the occurrence during the lifetime

of the husband of the informant. The husband of the informant left for his

heavenly abode on 17.02.2016. He submits that in the present case, the

cognizance has been taken under Section 498A/120B of the Indian Penal

Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that

the entire case, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, is

maliciously lodged.

8. Ms. Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2

submits that there are allegations and the case has been rightly instituted

under the said Sections. She further submits that the petitioners have also

tortured the opposite party no.2.

9. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that there

are allegations against the petitioners in the FIR.

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

parties and looking into the contents of the FIR, it appears that in the FIR, it

has been stated that on 08.02.2011, the marriage was solemnized between

the informant and Late Deepak Kumar. The allegations are made that just

after the marriage, the informant was being harassed and death of the

husband of the informant was also disclosed in the FIR, which was the

subject matter of the FIR and the allegations are made that thereafter, the

petitioners have started torturing the informant. Admittedly, petitioner nos.1

and 2 are residing separately at Ghutuwa, Ramgarh and they are brother-in-

law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant. What is the mode

of torture, that has not been disclosed in the FIR and how they have

tortured the informant, that has also not been disclosed. Further, the Court

finds that earlier the case was lodged, in which, after investigation final

form was submitted on 17.03.2016 whereby the petitioners were not sent

up for trial and the present case has been filed. It appears that the

petitioners, who happened to be relative and residing at different places,

have been maliciously made accused in the present case.

11. 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].

12. 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."

13. 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] .

14. 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].

15. 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] .

16. Coming back to the facts of the present case. The Court finds that