Jharkhand High Court
Matukdhari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 4 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 156 of 2013
----
1.Matukdhari Singh
2.Anita Devi
3.Sumit Singh
4.Sunita Kumari @ Nita Singh
5.Sunaina Kumari .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Aman Shekhar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Vishwambhar Shastri, Advocate
----
5/04.05.2023 Heard Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are in-laws of the O.P.No.2.
3. On 6.4.2022 and 31.8.2022 O.P.No.2 was not present. Identical was
the situation on 28.3.2023 and on that date matter was adjourned with a
view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P.no.2. Today again on
repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and in that
view of the matter, this petition is being heard on merit in absence of the
O.P.no.2.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order dated
10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint
Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Ranchi.
4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant got
married on 26.07.2007 at Khalari and after just one night all accused persons
started torturing the complainant making demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lacs and
on refusal the accused persons have badly tortured the complainant even after
the birth of a female child in the year 2008. It was further alleged that on
25.07.2010, the accused persons have badly beaten the complainant due to
which this complainant has left the house of the accused persons and till filing
of the case, the accused persons are demanding dowry on phone from the
complainant.
5. Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case against her actual husband namely
Brajendra Singh and her actual in-laws being Complaint Case No.574/1998 at
Ranchi under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act in which after trial, the learned court has been pleased to
acquit all the accused persons in that case vide judgment dated 23.08.2005
due to lack of evidence because opposite party no.2 and other witnesses have
never turned up for before charge evidence as she has taken heavy
consideration amount from her husband and now this petitioner, who is far
relative, has come in target of opposite party no.2 as the petitioner is a rich
person and opposite party no.2 has filed the case against the petitioners. He
further submits that opposite party no.2 has first lodged one FIR at Ara
(Bihar) on 08.08.2010 with different date and time of occurrence and after
lodging the FIR, she came to Ranchi and filed the complaint case at Ranchi on
12.08.2010 with different date and time of occurrence with some more
allegations, which clearly shows the malicious intention of opposite party no.2.
On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners are unnecessarily made an
accused in this case.
6. Mr. Shastri, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court
after looking to the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has taken
cognizance.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of
the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance. Annexure-2 is the
document, which suggests that one FIR was lodged at Ara (Bihar) against the
petitioner being Ara Nagar P.S. Case No.336 of 2010 on 08.08.2010 under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and the present complaint case has been filed at Ranchi on 12.08.2010.
Further looking into the contents of the complaint case, it transpires that there
is no allegation of demanding anything by this petitioner. There are omnibus
allegations against in-laws.
8. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid
state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more
than ever. How all the family members and distant relatives have been made
accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was subject matter in
Geeta Mehrotra & anr. v. State of U.P. & anr.; [(2012) 10 SCC 741].
9. Coming to the facts of the present case, looking to the complaint case
and earlier case filed at Ara (Bihar), it reveals that there are general allegations
against the in-laws. There is no direct allegation so far as the present
petitioners are concerned, who is said to be distant relative of in-laws' family
members.
10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated
10.03.2011 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint
Case No.1438 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Ranchi is quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
12. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
