Jharkhand High Court
Md. Imran Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2069 of 2017
1. Md. Imran Khan
2. Shahjahan Khan @ Md. Shahjahan Khan
3. Kamran Khan @ Md. Kamran Khan
4. Amna Parween @ Rina
5. Nilu
6. Munsari Parween @ Dolly
7. Md. Shakir Khan
8. Akbari Parween @ Rozy
...... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sabina Azmi Siddiqui ...... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Advocate
08/Dated: 29/11/2023
By order dated 11.03.2019 notice was directed to be issued upon the
O.P. No.2. By order dated 19.08.2023 further a week time was allowed for filing fresh
requisites on correct address of the O.P. No.2. Notice has been received by the sister
of the O.P. No.2. Further by order dated 05.10.2023 the petitioners were directed to
take step for substituted notice upon the O.P. no.2 by way of paper publication and
pursuant to that the petitioners have taken step and paper publication has been
brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit dated 09.11.2023.
2. Inspite of that O.P. No.2 has not appeared and accordingly this matter is
being heard in absence of O.P. No.2.
3. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned for the State.
4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2016 passed in C1 C.P.
Case No. 978 of 2014 arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No. 49/2014 corresponding to
G.R. No. 755/2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Complaint Case
No. 247/2014 was initially filed by the O.P. No.2 which was sent under section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and pursuant to that Balidih P.S. Case No. 49/2014 was
registered. He submits that police submitted final form contained in annexure-2.
He submits that in final form it has come that O.P. No.2 has taken khulla Talaq on
30.12.2013 meaning thereby that she has broken the marriage on her own choice.
He submits that police has not sent the petitioners for trial however on the protest
petition the learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits that after the
said khulla Talaq the complaint case was filed.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits accepts the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that final form has been submitted and khulla
Talaq has been obtained on 30.12.2013.
7. Inspite of steps taken for service of notice, how the O.P. no.2 is not
appearing, has been discussed here-in-above which suggests that the maliciously
the present case has been filed. Further khulla Talaq has been taken by the O.P.
No.2 on 30.12.2013 which has come in the final form and subsequently on protest
petition learned court has taken cognizance.
8. How Section 498A I.P.C are being misused was the subject matter in
several cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.
9. All the relatives are being implicated in such cases was subject
matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajesh Sharma V.
State of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 472.
10. The Court is required to proceed with circumspection if entire family
members are made accused, was the subject matter in the case of Arnesh
Kumar V. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
11. How the cases under section 498A I.P.C. are being filed in the heat of
moment was subject matter in the case of " Preeti Gupta V. State of
Jharkhand" (2010) 7 SCC 667
12. All these judgments have been further considered recently in the case
of "Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors."
(2022) 6 SCC 599.
13. Further coming to the facts of the present case Khulla Talaq has been
obtained on 30.12.2013. There are general and omnibus allegations against the
petitioners. After Khulla Talaq the present case has been filed. Inspite of valid
service of notice O.P. No.2 has not appeared which suggests that maliciously the
present case has been filed against the petitioners.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking
cognizance dated 01.12.2016 passed in C1 C.P. Case No. 978 of 2014 arising out
of Balidih P.S. Case No. 49/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 755/2014, pending in
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is hereby quashed.
15. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
