Jharkhand High Court

Goverdhan Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023

                                          1                       Cr.M.P. No.3611 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 3611 of 2022


                 1. Goverdhan Sao, aged about 72 years, s/o Manki Sao, r/o
                   Malesian Township, KPHB, Phase-5, Kukatpalli, P.O. & P.S.-
                   JNTU, Dist. Hyderabad (Telangana)
                 2. Malti Devi @ Malti Sao, aged about 60 years, wife of Goverdhan
                   Sao, r/o Malesian Township, KPHB, Phase-5, Kukatpalli, P.O. &
                   P.S.- JNTU, Dist. Hyderabad (Telangana)
                 3. Sandhya Rani Gupta, aged about 42 years, wife of Dr. Sanjay
                   Prasad Gupta, r/o Plot No. 321, ORO City, Jankipuram,
                   Lucknow, P.O. Jankipuram Estension, P.S. Jankipuram, Dist.
                   Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
                 4. Geetanjali Prasad, aged about 40 years, wife of Pankaj Kumar @
                   Pankaj Prasad, r/o Maitri Kunj, Risali, P.O. & P.S. Risali, Dist.
                   Durg (Chhattisgarh)
                 5. Om Prakash Sao, aged about 37 years, s/o Goverdhan Sao, r/o
                   Malesian Township, KPHB, Phase-5, Kukatpalli, P.O. & P.S.-
                   JNTU, Dist. Hyderabad (Telangana)
                                                  ....              Petitioners


                                        Versus

                 1. The State of Jharkhand
                 2. Sanu Saw, w/o Arun Saw and D/o Khemlal Saw, r/o village -
                    Kuju, Kuju Basti, P.O.- Kuju, P.S. Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh
                    (Jharkhand)
                                           ....             Opp. Parties



                                        PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                       .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer

for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with

Complaint Case No.308 of 2022, including the order dated

20.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ramgarh whereby and where under, Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ramgarh has found prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 34 of Indian Penal Code

and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1

being the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 being the mother-in-law,

petitioner nos.3 and 4 being the elder sister-in-law (Nanad) and the

petitioner no.5 being the brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the

complainant has treated the complainant with cruelty and did not

come to the rescue of the complainant when she was assaulted by

her husband.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

learned court below without application of mind in a most

mechanical manner has passed the order being satisfied about the

existence of the prima facie case against the petitioners for the

offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 34 of Indian

Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, paragraph no.28 of which

reads as under:-

"28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal is accordingly allowed."

And also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand &

Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, paragraph no.36 of which

reads as under:-

"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."

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

there is no specific allegation against the petitioners of having

committed any offences and the allegations against them are

general and omnibus in nature.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the main allegation is against the husband of the complainant

but he is not the petitioner before this Court. It is then submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of the

opposite party no.2 is in government service working as lecturer

in polytechnic college and was posted at Dantewada (Chattisgarh)

which is approximately 450 kms. away from Vaishali Nagar

(Bhilai). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the opposite party no.2 was residing with her

husband at Dantewada and out of the said wedlock, one child

who is presently one year and two months old was born. It is

further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the petitioner no.5 is the permanent employee of ORACLE India

Private Ltd. and is posted at Hyderabad since 2009 and during the

period of occurrence alleged; the petitioner no.5 was at

Hyderabad and was regularly attending his duty. It is next

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioner no.3 is employed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. as a

Junior Telecom Officer since 2003 and is posted at Lucknow and is

settled with her family at Lucknow and she was attending her

duty on all the dates mentioned in the complaint and the

petitioner no.4 is also employed in BSNL as a Junior Telecom

Officer since 2009 and she is permanently posted at Durg and on

the alleged date of occurrence, she was all alone present at Durg

and was attending her duties and did not take leave on any date.

It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the petitioner no.1 and 2 are old persons and the petitioner no.2 is

suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder and the petitioner

nos.1 and 2 are under treatment at Hyderabad where they are

staying with the petitioner no.5. It is further submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the falsity of the allegation

can be apparent from the fact that on the alleged date of

occurrence i.e. during the Durga Puja of the period 2019, the

opposite party no.2 along with her husband had gone for a tour to

Visakhapatnam and was not present at Bhilai. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and mala fide

intention. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.308 of 2022,

including the order dated 20.08.2022 passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the

prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection

with Complaint Case No.308 of 2022, including the order dated

20.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ramgarh and submits that there is specific allegation against the

petitioners of not coming to the rescue of the victim when she was

assaulted by her husband and by telling unkind words about her.

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 record, it is pertinent to mention here

that it is a settled principle of law that in order to lodge a proper

complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those

sections is not be all and end all of the matter and what is required

to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the

offence committed by each and every accused and the role played

by each and every accused in committing of that offence as has

been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Neelu Chopra & Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC

184, paragraph nos.9 and 10 of which reads as under:-

"9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.

10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."

8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no specific

allegation against the petitioners of having committed any of the

offences rather the allegation against them are vague and general

and omnibus in nature.

9. Merely not coming to the rescue of complainant when she was

assaulted by her husband; in absence of other allegations against

them, cannot be treated to be an act of cruelty perpetrated by the

petitioners, upon the complainant.

10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the

petitioners, will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit

case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with