Poonam Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3432 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. M. P. No. 2653 of 2022
         1.Poonam Devi
         2.Lal Babu Singh @ Wakil Singh
         3.Chunchun Devi @ Chunchun Kumari
         4.Virendar Singh @ Birendar Singh.... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                        Versus
         1.The State of Jharkhand.
         2.Dharamshila Kumari                .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amitabh Pd. & Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advs.

         For the State              : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, SPP
         For the O.P. No.2 :          Mr. P. C. Sinha, Advocate
                        ......

08/ 11.09.2023. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 28.06.2022 passed by SDJM, Bokaro in Complaint Case No.454 of 2020 whereby and whereunder prima facie case has been found to made out against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A r/w 34 of the IPC.

2. Complainant was married to accused no.1 (Jitedra Kumar) on 09.05.2005. The allegation is that she was subjected to cruelty by all the accused persons including the petitioners in reference to unlawful demand. Rs.3 Lakhs in cash, three Bhar Gold and house hold article worth Rs 50,000/- was given as dowry. Petitioner no.1 is the sister-in-law (Nanand), petitioner no.2 is the husband of petitioner no.1.

3. Somewhat unusual allegation has been levelled that husband of the complainant was entangled with Petitioner no.3 wife of the brother of the Complainant and it is alleged that she was going to marry her husband. Petitioner no.4 is father of petitioner no.3.

4. The statement of the complainant and two witnesses were recorded during enquiry after which, the summoning order has been issued against the petitioners and other accused persons. Aggrieved by the order, the instant Cr. M. P. has been filed.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Petitioner 3 & 4 are not related to the husband of the Complainant, rather they are related to the Complainant herself from her father's side, therefore they will not come within the meaning of definition of 'relation of the husband' under

Section 498 A of the IPC and therefore even if the allegations are assumed to be true, criminal prosecution will not lie for the offence u/s 498A.

6. It is submitted that Petitioner nos.3 and 4 have been implicated in the present case for the reason that accused no.1 (husband of the complainant) had supported the petitioner nos.3 and 4 in Divorce Case No.115 of 2018 (filed by the petitioner no.3) against the brother of the Complainant, for which she was nurturing grudge against them. None of these ever shared the domestic household with the Complainant.

7. Petitioner no 1 is the married sister-in-law and Petitioner no-2 is her husband who never shared the domestic house hold with the Complainant. Dispute if any was between the Complainant and her husband for which they have been implicated in the case after about 16 years of the marriage.

8. It is submitted that no allegation has been made against the petitioners by the witness(es) in enquiry and yet the summoning order has been issued without any application of mind.

9. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2/ complainant have opposed the quashing petition and referred to the averment made in the complaint petition. It is submitted that the complainant stated that her husband wanted to marry with the petitioner no.3 which resulted in mental harassment to her. She further stated that the other petitioners including her husband assaulted and demanded money as well as valuables from her.

10. After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and the materials on record, it is apparent that husband (Accused no.1) of the Complainant who was married with her in 2005, is not Petitioner in the present quashing Petition.

11. A plain reading of the Complaint petition will reveal that at the root of marital dispute was the alleged extramarital relationship of the husband of the Complainant. Allegation of unlawful demand coming up after 16 years of the marriage that too by a person who was a permanent railway employee, does not inspire much confidence. The trouble arose with the intimacy of the complainant's husband with Petitioner no.3 and his extra marital relationship with her. Allegations are mainly directed against him, that he grew cold and apathetic towards the Complainant. It is alleged that there was a brief interlude and in the maintenance case matter was settled by the mediation centre on 25.03.2019, but there was not much change in his

conduct. It is also alleged that all the accused conjointly assaulted her. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is to a large extent true that no specific allegations have been levelled against them.

12. As far as Petitioners no.1 is concerned she is married sister-in-law of the complainant and Petitioner no.2 is her husband, who do not share the domestic household. Not word has been spoken against them by the complainant or the witnesses to substantiate the allegations made against them in the complaint petition.

On these materials this court is of the view that no prima-facie case is made out against them.

13. As far as Petitioner no.3 & 4 are concerned, they cannot be said to be relative of the husband and therefore even if the allegations are assumed to be true no offence under Section 498A IPC will be made out. It was incumbent on the part of the learned court below that before proceeding against these petitioners, it should have kept in mind the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757

18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the

relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741

15. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, Respondent 2 complainant has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant's ex-husband. The facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-laws' house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as to how they could be implicated in the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra, including his parents.

18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

22. In yet another case reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848 : AIR 2003 SC 1386] it was observed that: (SCC p. 682, para 14) "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to [punish the] husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry."

But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498-A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent the woman from settling earlier. Thus, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.

Petitioners nos. 3 & 4 are not related to the husband, rather they can be said to be related to the complainant from her father's side. Petitioner no.1 is the sister-in-law and Petitioner no.2 is her husband and on the material prima facie case is not made out as against them.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons discussed above, the summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceeding against these petitioners is quashed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/

Uploaded