Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1024 of 2022
------
1. Ranjit Singh
2. Anand Mohan Singh @ Tuntun Singh
3. Pranity Singh
4. Vikash Singh .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Vinita Singh .... .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
------
Order No.06 Dated :18.01.2023
Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Sector IV P.S. Case No.141 of 2021 dated
30.10.2021 under Sections 498A, 379, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
2. The petitioner No.1 is father-in-law and petitioner No.2 is son of
sister of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law (Gotni) and petitioner
No.4 is brother-in-law of complainant.
3. It is the case of the informant as disclosed in the FIR that the
petitioner no.4 Vikash Singh living in Australia with his family members is the
elder brother of her late husband. Petitioner No.3-Pranity Singh is the wife of
petitioner No.4. The informant is living with her father in law (petitioner
No.1) who had started a partnership business of Gas Agency under the name
of Samarjeet Memorial. After the demise of her husband on 27.01.2021, the
petitioner introduced the informant as 50% partner in the partnership business
of gas agency. The partnership deed was executed on 24.3.2021 and submitted
in the office of the Indian oil Corporation. It is alleged that under the
instigation of the Vikash Singh and his wife, her father-in-law threatened her
that he would not include the informant's name in the said gas agency. It is
also alleged that her father-in-law had taken hefty loan and for repayment of
the said loans he fraudulently borrowed money from the informant. The
informant was forced to issue cheques for the repayment of loan amount and
was also forced to execute a resolution deed against the notorized partnership
deed dated 24.03.2021. There are other allegations of entering into her room
and yelling at her while rummaging for documents relating to partnership
business on 15.6.2021 when the informant was suffering from Corona and of
committing criminal mischief by damaging bed and other articles in her room.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the
husband of the complainant is not alive and the marriage was solemnized
about 13 years ago and present case is filed against the in-laws only for the
purpose of settling property dispute with them. The assertions made in the FIR
does not disclose an offence under Section 498A or any other offence. As a
matter of fact, it was the informant who was persistently harassing her father-
in-law and the Petitioner No.1 was forced to take legal recourse against the
said harassment. The present case has been instituted in retaliation to the case
filed u/s 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 by her 75 years old father in-law. Husband of the complainant during his
lifetime had taken huge loan by using the cheques of the petitioner No.1 by
using it as collateral at high rate of interest. There were other property disputes
for which the present case has been filed to coerce the petitioners to a
settlement as per the choice of the informant. The instant criminal proceeding
is a gross misuse of process of court Reliance has been placed in the case of
Preeti Gupta & Another Versus State of Jharkhand & Another; (2010) 7
SCC 667.
4. Heard the A.P.P. and learned counsel on behalf of the informant.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant in the present case.
It is submitted that no interference in the impugned order is called for at this
stage as it is not covered by the ratio of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335. It is also submitted that a prima facie case is made out
against the accused persons.
Reliance has been placed by learned A.P.P. in the case of Divisional
Forest Officer & Another Versus G.V. Sudhakar Rao & Others; AIR 1986
SC 328
5. From a plain reading of a FIR, it is apparent from the tone and tenor that the grievance
of the informant is with regard to the partnership business of the gas agency. The very
object of enacting Section 498A was to protecting a women from being subjected to cruelty
by the relatives of the husband, particularly in cases relating to unlawful demand. An
offence under this section will also be made out as per the definition of cruelty given in the
section even if it was unrelated to the unlawful demand but was of a degree as mentioned in
the explanation to the Section.
6.In the present case the prosecution story revolves around financial dispute over a
partnership business which has been given a colour of Section 498 A of the IPC. It is
surprising that Petitioner 3 and 4 who are living in Australia and not even sharing the
domestic household have been roped into the case on account of some mobile calls made by
them to Petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.2 is also distantly related and cannot be said to be
living with the informant.The present case has been filed after the ageing father-in-law had
to take the shelter for protection under Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
On the basis of allegations made no offence is made out against the accused persons. It will
be a misuse of process of court to permit such criminal prosecution to proceed further.
Very recently Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Kahkashan
Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana,
(2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)
"6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should
not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them.
The entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sector IV P.S. Case
No.141 of 2021 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is
quashed.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
