Jharkhand High Court
Kartik Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3473 of 2013
Kartik Prasad Gupta ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Subhadra Kumari Shah @ Pinki ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Keshri, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. A.K. Dey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None.
------
12/ 09.11.2023 No body has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 in spite
of repeated calls. On 05.07.2022, 04.11.2022 and 12.12.2022, the O.P.
No. 2 has not appeared that's why observation was made that on the
next date, if the O.P. No. 2 will not appear, the matter shall be decided
in her absence.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Keshari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Mr. A.K. Dey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
30.06.2008, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406,
498-A, 494/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with
Chakradhar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 60 of
2007 [arising out of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2007], pending in the
court of learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa.
4. The prosecution case as alleged in the FIR inter-alia that
complaint case is the part of the FIR Opposite party No.2 has filed a
Complaint Case No. 2/2007 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa on 03.01. 2007 subsequently the
Learned S.D.J.M. has directed the officer-in- Charge Chakradharpur to
institute F.I.R. as per the relevant section under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
thereafter Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 20/2007 has been instituted U/S
406, 498-A/ 494/34 1.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on
10.02.2007 as per case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the marriage
of the Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with Pradip Kumar on
06.02.2005 at Chakradharpur in the marriage this petitioner has played
a role mediator in between them. That after marriage Pradip Kumar
took the Opposite Party No.2 to his house at village Samusai near Bara
Bamboo Railway Station the Opposite Party No.2 and Pradip Kumar
laid together as a husband and wife at Samusai village for about one
and half month. Thereafter the complainant came to his parent house at
Chakradharpur.
At the time of Bidai of Opposite Party No.2 the Pradip
Kumar Gupta and Smt. Rajo Rani Devi told her to bring Rs. 5
Lacs as dowry, and threatened that if she will not bring Rs. 5 Lacs
then she will not be allowed to enter in the house. They also told
that complainant is the only daughter of her parent and her father
and brother are employed. So they have no difficulty in given Rs.
5 Lacs. That the Opposite Party No.2 told the entire fact to her
parent, when she come to the house of her parent at
Chakradharpur.
After about 7-8 months the mother-in-law and Nanad of the
Opposite party No.2 came to Chakradhar and took the Opposite
Party No.2 to her in laws house. But accused No.1, husband of the
Opposite Party No.2 never came to take the Opposite Party No.2
to his house after Bidai. That after reaching the Opposite Party
No.2 her in laws house the husband and mother-in-law of
Opposite Party No.2 started assaulting the Opposite party No.2
and demanding Rs. 5 Lacs as dowry. The husband and mother-in-
law of the Opposite Party No.2 did not provide proper food to the
Opposite party No.2 and given out that they will kill her by fire if
she will not bring Rs. 5 Lacs from her parent and solemnize
second marriage of husband of Opposite Party No.2.
The Opposite Party No.2 sent this information to her parent.
The Opposite party No.2's parent sent Rs. 35,000/- on 13.02.2006,
Rs. 30,000/- on 27.02.2006, Rs.25,000 on 08.04.2006, Rs.
25,000/- on 30.04.2006, and Rs. 15,000 on 28.05.2006 through
Balram, brother of the Opposite Party No.2. But inspite of that the
husband and mother-in-law of the Opposite Party No.2 continued
torturing the Opposite Party No.2 on demand of more money. The
Opposite Party No.2's parent ultimately showed their in ability to
make more payment.
On getting information that the parent of the Opposite Party
No.2 not ready to give more money the Opposite Party No.2 was
kicked out from the house, after keeping all the belonging,
ornaments and other articles given to her at time of marriage at
marriage gift by parent and other relatives. The Opposite Party
No.2 seeing on alternative went to the house of her parent and
informed the entire fact to them and other persons.
The Opposite Party No.2's father then approached the
Mantosh Kumar Gupta and Santosh Kumar Gupta who were
brothers of the husband of Opposite Party No.2 and also
approached Kartik Prasad Gupta (Present petitioner) who was
mediator of the marriage. They also clearly stated to the father of
the Opposite Party No.2 that if he will not give total Rs. 5 Lacs the
husband of Opposite Party No.2 he would kept the Opposite party
No.2 in his house. They also told that the Opposite Party No.2 is
his only daughter and he and his son are employed. So they have
no difficulty in payment of Rs. 5 Lacs.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the complaint case was sent by the learned court to register the FIR and
pursuant to that the FIR has been registered. He submits that the
petitioner was the cousin brother of the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and
his role is only disclosed in the complaint petition as mediatory for
settlement of marriage. He further submits that the case has been filed
under Section 498-A of IPC and other co-accused persons have faced
the trial. He further submits that the learned SDJM, Porahat, Chaibasa
by the judgment dated 23.05.2013 passed in T.R. No. 15 of 2013 has
convicted the accused persons namely Pradip Kumar Gupta, Mantosh
Kumar Gupta and Rajoram Gupta. He submits that in Criminal Appeal
No. 58 of 2013 two accused persons were acquitted and further the
husband namely Pradip Kumar Gupta was acquitted in Criminal
Revision No. 1046 of 2013. He submits that apart from that there is no
allegation so far as this petitioner is concerned. On these grounds, he
submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State also accept this
position that the main accused has been acquitted.
7. In view of the above, it appears that the case is arising out
of Section 498-A of the IPC and the distant relatives are also made
accused in the case, that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Preeti Gupta Vrs. State of Jharkhand, reported in
[(2010) 7 SCC 667].
8. Looking into the complaint petition, it transpires that the
only allegation against the petitioner is that he was only the mediatory
of the marriage settlement and further the main accused persons have
already been acquitted, as noted hereinabove in the submission of
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and that is fortified in view
of the report of the Secretary, DLSA, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa,
which is on the record.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the
order taking cognizance dated 30.06.2008, by which, cognizance for the
offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 494/34 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the
petitioner, in connection with Chakradhar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007
corresponding to G.R. No. 60 of 2007 [arising out of Complaint Case
No. 02 of 2007], pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Porahat,
Chaibasa, are hereby, quashed so far as this petitioner is concerned.
10. As such, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
