Jharkhand High Court
Satyakriti vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 8 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1928 of 2014
----
Satyakriti .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2371 of 2014
----
Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Another .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2382 of 2014
----
Santanu Krishna .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
Mrs.Ruby Pandey, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia, Advocate
Miss Niharika Nidhi, Advocate
----
12/08.05.2023 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsels
appearing for the respondent State and Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia and Miss
Niharika Nidhi, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
2. In these petitions common question of law as well as order
taking cognizance are under challenge that is why with consent of the
parties all these petitions have been heard together.
3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2013,
in connection with Complaint Case No.794 of 2013, pending in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
4. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein
that the complainant's marriage was solemnized with petitioner on
11.3.2012 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. Rs.23,90,000/- was
deposited in the account of the father of the petitioner by the
complainant's father and Rs.64,000/- was paid to the accused persons for
purchasing of suit. It is alleged that after marriage the mother in law and
father in law took signature of complainant on blank cheque and entire
amount was taken out by them. The petitioner after taking her to
Vishakhapatnam spent less time with her. The petitioner was transferred
to Delhi and there the complainant was humiliated and mocked on small
issues. The complainant went Hazaribagh alone and narrated the whole
story to her parents. The complainant again started living with petitioner
where she was tortured by her in laws. It is alleged that one night the
complainant was forcibly made drink wine by petitioner and was locked
inside the room from where the complainant informed the police who
came to her rescue. It is alleged that husband and inlaws always use to
insist for divorce.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
are, husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law in these
petitions. He submits that husband of the complainant was posted as
leutinant commandant at the time of marriage in Indian Navy and was
posted at New Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of
Commander in the said organization. The petitioner has filed original suit
for divorce being O.S.No.355 of 2014 against the O.P.No.2 and the said
suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner namely Satyakriti and against
the O.P.No.2.He submits that said order was challenged by O.P.No.2 in
F.A. No.171 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2021
and said appeal was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 on the ground that she
has received one time alimony of Rs.25 lacs. In view of that, the decree
of divorce was attained finality. He submits that in this background, to
continue the proceeding further will amount to abuse of the process of
law. He submits that now the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 has already
solemnized another marriage after divorce.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
submits that cruelty has been made against the O.P.No.2 and that is why
the case has been filed and cognizance has been taken against all the
accused persons and once the criminality is made out, both proceedings,
criminal as well as civil can go simultaneously and in that view of the
matter the proceeding may not be quashed.
7. The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that
it appears that divorce has attained finality in view of the fact that the
said F.A was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 as she has received one-time
alimony of Rs.25 lacs.
8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for
the parties, admittedly these petitioners are the husband and in-laws of
the O.P.No.2. The complaint case was filed alleging cruelty has been
made by these petitioners and based on that the cognizance has been
taken. The Court finds that in a divorce petition which was subject matter
in original suit on the materials on record the Court finds that husband of
the O.P.No.2 has been able to prove that after marriage the respondent
has treated him with cruelty and that cannot reasonably expected to live
with his wife and for a long period of six years the husband and wife
were separate and learned Court found that there is no chance of
re-union that is why the divorce was granted in favour of the Satyakriti,
who happens to be husband of the O.P.No.2. Further the said decree of
divorce was affirmed in view of not pressing the F.A. No.171 of 2019 on
the ground that O.P.no.2 has received one-time alimony of Rs.25 lacs.
Looking to the complaint petition it transpires that there are general and
omnibus allegations against the in-laws. Further in a civil case, cruelty by
the O.P.No.2 has been proved in view of decree of divorce passed in the
said original suit. It is well settled that in criminal case the judgment of
civil court can be taken note of for provision of sections 41 to 43 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of "Kishan Singh (Deceased) through LRs v. Gurpal Singh and
Others," (2010) 8 SCC 775. Paragraph no.18 of the said judgment is
quoted below:
"18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue
stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact
recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far
as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa.
Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases.
In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in
criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There
is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that
findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal
proceedings shall be binding between the same parties
while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the
cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence
adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the
provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in
subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."
9. In view of the above facts and reasons and analysis the
entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated
05.07.2013, in connection with Complaint Case No.794 of 2013, pending
in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed.
10. Cr.M.P.No.1928 of 2014, Cr.M.P.No.2371 of 2014 and Cr.M.P.
No.2382 of 2014 are allowed and disposed of.
11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
