Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Rajput @ Rakesh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 October, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2579 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2579 of 2013
1. Rakesh Rajput @ Rakesh
2. Reena Rajput @ Rina ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anita Singh ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Ms. Ashma Khanam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
-----
05/31.10.2023 Heard Ms. Ashma Khanam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Soumitra
Baroi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2013 passed
in connection with C.P. Case No.996 of 2013, pending in the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the marriage of the
complainant was solemnized with Sanjeev Kumar on 08.06.1998 at
Dhanbad in which several articles and cash were given. It was also alleged
that these petitioners had tortured her. When her family visited to Noida,
she was assaulted by Surendra Prasad Singh and these petitioners had
connived with them. Their wedlock was blessed with two children. It was
further alleged by the complainant that on 2 nd April, 2013 when she was
staying at Flat No.401, Ganesh Apartment, Jarodih, Dhanbad along with her
husband Reena Rajput came to her house along with her father and
assaulted her and tried to burn her face. It was stated that Reena Rajput is
only sister of Sanjeev Kumar and she has very much concern about her
brother's career and since the business at Noida has been wind up and she
wanted the complainant's father to provide money to her brother in order to
start new business.
4. Ms. Ashma Khanam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant
(opposite party no.2) and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of the
complainant. She further submits that they are residing at Hyderabad,
whereas, the allegation is made that the alleged occurrence took place at
Dhanbad. She also submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 has
filed a divorce case which is numbered as H.M.A. Petition No.541 of 2013.
She further submits that the present complaint case has been filed on
18.04.2013. She submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned,
there are only general and omnibus allegations against them. She draws
attention of the Court to Annexure-2 and submits that on 01.04.2013,
petitioner no.2 was travelling and the allegations are made that on
02.04.2013 torture was made by these petitioners, which falsify the case
against the petitioners who happened to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law
of the complainant respectively.
5. Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits
that there are allegations against these petitioners and in view of that, no
case of interference is made out. He further submits that these are
questions of fact and that can only be appreciated in the trial.
6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State
submits that the learned Court has taken cognizance pursuant to complaint
petition.
7. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, the Court has gone through the complaint petition as well as
the documents brought on record including the order taking cognizance. It
is an admitted fact that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of opposite
party no.2 and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2.
They are residing at Hyderabad, whereas, the alleged place of occurrence is
at Dhanbad. In paragraph 8 of the complaint petition, it has been alleged
that on 02.04.2013, the accused came to Dhanbad and tortured the
complainant, whereas, Annexure-2 is the document issued by the South
Central Railway, which clearly suggest that petitioner no.2 was travelling on
01.04.2013 and three berths were allotted and the name of passengers are
disclosed as Rina Rajput, Ananya Rajput and Diksha Rajput which clearly
suggest that false statement is made in paragraph 8 of the complaint
petition.
8. With the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband
or his relatives, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the
statute. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent
years and it appears that in many cases, the object of Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code is being misused and the said Section is used as weapon
rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in [(2014) 8 SCC
273], certain guidelines have been issued how to arrest a person against
whom matrimonial disputes are there.
9. Such type of cases are being filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues without proper deliberations and this aspect of the matter has
been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 667].
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat
of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints
are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The
learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must
discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure
that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains
intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualised by
the complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the
real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of
husband's close relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to
be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if
the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely
long and painful."
10. Little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are falsely implicated by the wives. This aspect of the
matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 741].
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana, reported in [(2018) 14 SCC 452] has observed that the
Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
12. The above line of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly
suggest that how Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused
nowadays.
13. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that
what has been alleged in paragraph 8 of the complaint, on that
day petitioner no.2 was travelling along with her two children in the
train and the allegations are made that she has tortured the complainant
at Dhanbad.
14. Further, the role played by these petitioners is not disclosed and there
are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. The
present complaint case fails to establish specific allegation against these
petitioners, who happened to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
complainant.
15. In view of the above and considering relevant circumstances and in
absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, it would be unjust
if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.
16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, so far as these
petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceedings including the
order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2013 passed in connection with C.P.
Case No.996 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad are quashed.
17. It is made clear that so far as other accused persons are concerned,
this Court has not interfered and the learned Court will proceed, in
accordance with law.
18. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
