Jharkhand High Court
Binit Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2018
------
Binit Kumar Shrivastava .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Martina Hansda @ Jyoti .... .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prem Shankar Dayal, Advocate
------
Order No.08 Dated : 05.10.2023
Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding in Complaint Case No.3279 of 2016 including the order taking
cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court
of learned J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi.
2. The short question that falls for consideration in the instant criminal
miscellaneous petition is whether a complaint case under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code can be filed after judgment and decree of divorce is passed
by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The complainant was married to the petitioner on 22nd April, 2003
and the complaint has been filed on 16.12.2016 alleging that she was
subjected to cruelty in reference of twin allegations that have been levelled in
the complaint petition. Firstly, the complainant had been kicked out of the
house by this petitioner and the another co-accused and she were forced to
sign some stamp papers. The second allegation is that on 13.12.2016 at about
6.00 p.m. when she went to her flat, she found the petitioner along with
another lady who appeared to be newly married to the petitioner.
4 The statement of the complainant is recorded in solemn affirmation
and three witnesses have been examined during enquiry.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that even
if the allegations made are presumed to be true, no offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code will be made out for the reason that there is no
specification regarding the said unlawful demand. It has not been stated what
was demanded in cash or kind and when such demand was made.
Furthermore, it is stated that she had been kicked out but what was injury
sustained, the complaint petition is absolutely silent on it.
6. In the statement on solemn affirmation in para 1 where she had given
her statement on record that she had an absolutely normal relationship with
her husband from 2003-2014 and had no complaint from anyone and they
have been living separately since then. Reliance is placed on Hazi Iqbal @
Bala through S.P.O.A. Versus State of U.P. & Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
7. As a matter of fact, it is contended that the decree of divorce took
place by the Judgment dated 2nd August, 2016 in Original Suit (M.T.S.) Case
No.519 of 2015. Against the decree, an ex-parte judgment in Civil
Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2018 was preferred by the complainant which
was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2018. After decree of divorce and ex-
parte decree, the present complaint has been filed.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of complainant/opposite
party no.2 that there is no interdict from filing complaint even after divorce,
even the allegation pertains. It is submitted that this is a case of mental cruelty.
She was brutally assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home which has
come in para 7 and 8 of the complaint petition. They also caused mental
cruelty by not permitting her from entering into the flat purchased by the
complainant. The witnesses, son and daughter of the complainant have also
supported the case of the complainant during enquiry. Reliance is placed on
State of Odisha Versus Pratima Mohanty 2022 1 JLJR (SC) 111.
9. After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
both sides and considering the materials on record, it is apparent that the date,
time and place of assault have not been mentioned in the complaint petition.
There is further no reference as to what was demanded and when such demand
was really made. The instant case has been filed after the decree of divorce.
Under the circumstance, the Court is of the view that prima facie case is not
made out on the basis of materials on record.
The summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceeding is
quashed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
