Punam Goel vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 861 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 2810 of 2022
         1.Punam Goel
         2.Rohit Goel
         3.Panna Lal Goel
         4.Sarita Goel                      .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                        Versus
         1.The State of Jharkhand.
         2.Ankit Kumar Agarwal               .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioner(s) :     Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
         For the State            :  Mrs. P. Shrestha, APP
         For the O.P. No.2 :         Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate
                        ......

05/ 22.02.2023. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR being Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.142 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 384, 500, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the D. P. Act.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant/ O.P. No.2 is the husband. Petitioner no.1 is his wife and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are his in-laws.

The Police case has been registered on the basis of a complaint petition in which the main allegation is that accused / petitioner no.1 after separation on 08.08.2020 had made through various mediators extortionit demand of Rs.21 Lakhs and forced for mutual divorce and threatened to falsely implicated in several cases.

The second allegation is that on 07.02.2020, petitioner no.1 had taken jewelleries worth Rs.1,70,000/- which was the stridhan of the mother of the complainant, but without her consent. Thirdly, the SIM card that has been issued in the name of complainant was used by accused no.1 for three years resulting in loss of Rs.7,200/-. Lastly they had fulfilled illegally dowry demand of Rs.17 Lakhs which is a penal offence.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a classical example of malicious prosecution where the complaint has been forwarded for being registered, but without following the guidelines as laid down in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2015 (6)SCC 287 and the same has been reiterated in the judgment reported in 2022(5)SCC 639 at Para 26.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the wife and she had earlier filed the following cases against the present complainant.:

(i) Satara P.S. Case No.83 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the O.P. No.2 and his parents.

(ii) An application under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide P.W.D.V.A. Application No.232 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 before the Family Court at Aurangabad.

(iii) An application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance before the learned Family Judge, Aurangabad which was registered as Petition No.E 223 of 2021.

6. The present case has been filed to spite and harass the petitioners which will be apparen from the bare reading of the FIR which is a litany of frivolous allegation against the petitioners on the basis of which no prima facie case will be made out. By no stretch of imagination during the course of negotiation and settlement before the mediator any demand made or amount settled can be said to be caused by extortion..

7. It is submitted that the allegation of taking the stridhan of mother of the complainant is without any basis and no place has been mentioned as to where it has been taken. The allegation pertains to 7th February, 2020 whereas the complaint is being filed on 08.05.2022 and in the meantime the mother herself never complained about this. The allegation of fulfilling dowry demand is concerned, ironically it has come from the side against whom there is allegation of making such a demand which is being denied by the learned counsel on behalf of the OPno.2

8. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 has misused the Sim card of the complainant and had also taken the gold ornaments of his mother without her consent and knowledge.

9. Can a demand before a Mediator in a settlement for permanent alimony be regarded as extortion demand is one of the seminal questions that arises for consideration before this Court in the present Cr. M. P. The complainant is the husband who has hurled all sorts of allegations including the allegation of Mobile Sim being misused for which the present criminal proceeding has been initiated against the wife and in-laws.

This Court is of the considered view that during the settlement proceedings before the Mediator, the demand and payment cannot be said to be extortionist so as to initiate criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 on the allegation of fulfilling of demand specifically submits that no such dowry had been paid. Therefore, the very plea taken in Para -28 of the complaint petition has no foundation.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR being Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.142 of 2022 is quashed so far the petitioners, above-named are concerned.

In the result, the instant Cr. M. P. is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/