Jharkhand High Court
Hari Sadhan Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1442 of 2013
Hari Sadhan Pandey ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Nitu Kumari @ Nitu Devi ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate.
------
07/ 06.10.2023 Heard Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr.
Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
07.06.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in
connection with C.P. Case No. 951 of 2012, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. Complaint case was lodged alleging therein that the
complainant is the legal wife of the petitioner marriage has been
solemnized on Chitragupta Mandir Sindri, on & their 14.4.12 in the
occasion the father of the complainant has given 4.21 lac rupees one
motorcycle C.B. Zed, Extreme, Hero Honda Company Cost about
75,000/- & Ornament of Rs.25,000/- & after bidagi the complainant
came to her husband's house on 15/4/12 but since after the day
petitioner & his all family member father in law, mother in law
Bhaishur, Gotni Began to torturing for bringing more amount of
Rs.11,000/- for the purpose of few new materials purchased by her
husband and when the complainant denied several hard languages used
by the petitioner's family members & on that very occasion the entire
ornament valuable commodities & amounts have been kept by her
mother in law for the view of safety, not only that the allegation of the
Complainant is that she was working the entire house works but the
opposite party members were not pleased any how on 18/4/12 the
complainant returned to her parental house with petitioner where the
petitioner claimed one Golden Chain & began to force to his father in
law, later on again the complainant has came to her sasural on 21/4/12
and on that occasion again 1 lac rupees demanded by the petitioner's
family for the purpose of land purchasing and strictly order to the
complainant if she will not bring the said amounts she will be get out
from the house, subsequently on 27/4/12 she has been informed that
they have to attend in a marriage party & order to ready, but after a few
moment the family member of petitioner denied to carried her & on that
very night at 11 pm all of sudden her door began to knocking and
opened the door and Bhaishur of complainant forcibly get out her from
the house &seated in a car and reached the father in law house,
accordingly they have left the complainant in the house of her parents
to say that keep your daughter and later on the complainant party tried
to short out the dispute through village mediation but the petitioner
party again claimed of Rs. 1 lac rupee in condition of compromised,
simultaneously they tried to short out through various sources but
failure. Consequently, this complaint case has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and the marriage between
them was solemnized on 14.04.2012 and the circumstance was such
that this petitioner was forced to file the divorce petition against the
O.P. No. 2 on 03.05.2012 itself. He submits that the present complaint
case has been filed on 09.05.2012 with ill motive when the step has
been taken by the petitioner for divorce. He further submits that the said
divorce case has already been allowed by order dated 03.12.2016 in
Title Matrimonial Suit No. 108 of 2012. He further submits that in view
of that when the marriage is said to be null and void, the case under
Section 498-A IPC is not made out and unnecessarily the matter is
pending before the learned court.
5. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the
O.P. No. 2 submits that in para-5 of the petition, the petitioner has
disclosed that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full dignity.
He submits that the divorce order is under challenge before this Court
in the First Appeal, which is still pending. He further submits that in
view of that there is no finality of the divorce case and interference at
this stage is not required by this court.
6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it is an admitted position that on 14.04.2012,
the marriage took place between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. The
petitioner filed a divorce case, being Title Matrimonial Suit No. 108 of
2012 on 03.05.2012 and thereafter the present complaint case has been
filed on 09.05.2012. Further the marriage has already been held to be
null and void by order dated 03.12.2016 in Title Matrimonial Suit No.
108 of 2012 and this aspect of the matter is well covered in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivcharan
Lal Verma & Anr. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2007)
15 SCC 369.
7. Even if the submission of Mr. Rai, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2 is accepted that the First Appeal is still
pending and there is no finality, however, it is an admitted position that
there is no stay in the said first appeal and merely filing of the appeal
and pending in absence of any stay order, the order passed in the
divorce case is still there.
8. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2 is not accepted by the Court.
9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this
petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings including the
order taking cognizance dated 07.06.2012, by which, cognizance for the
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken
against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 951 of 2012,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad,
are hereby, set aside.
10. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
