Jharkhand High Court
Shahid Siddique @ Md. Sahid ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 158 of 2018
-----
1. Shahid Siddique @ Md. Sahid Siddiqui
2. Md. Khalique Siddique @ Md. Khalik Siddiqui
3. Hina Kaushan
4. Rufi Begam @ Rufi Begum ... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kahkasha Parween @ Baby ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 13.09.2023
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.12.2017
passed in Govindpur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2013 (G.R. No. 454 of 2013)
whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out
under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 34 of IPC.
2. C.P. Case No. 239 of 2013 is the basis of the present case which was
forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the FIR was registered. After
investigation charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance taken against
the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order the instant criminal miscellaneous
petition has been preferred.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Petitioner nos. 1
and 2 are the brothers-in-law (devar) of the complainant/informant and
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are sisters-in-law of the complainant/informant. It is
further submitted that there is no material against these petitioners in the
entire case diary and the cognizance has been taken without application of
judicial mind on general and omnibus allegation levelled against the entire
family.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that altogether
five witnesses including the informant have been examined during
investigation who have made allegations against the Petitioners but none of
the witnesses have stated against these petitioners.
5. Specific allegations have been made against the husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the informant and the allegations against these petitioners
are general and omnibus in nature.
6. Before proceeding further, it shall be desirable to take note of the
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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.
7. Unfortunately, the breakdown of marital relations is followed by a spate of
criminal cases in which there is a propensity to implicate the entire family. It
becomes the duty of the investigating agency as well as the Courts to
carefully scrutinize the materials, so that innocent persons are not roped into
the case and needlessly persecuted. Section 498A reads as under
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
From the above definition of cruelty, it is manifest that the willful
conduct should be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or harassment is made in reference to an unlawful demand.
8. There is no material act alleged on the part of these petitioners so as to bring
it within the meaning of cruelty under Explanation (a).
9. In order to make out a prima facie case under Explanation (b), it is necessary
that there should be material to show that these petitioners had subjected the
complainant to harassment in reference to the unlawful demand. In the
present case, altogether seven family members have been implicated on the
basis of the complaint/FIR. The names of these petitioners do not figure in
the complaint as the persons who had made demand. In absence of any
allegation of demand against these petitioners, omnibus allegation against
them that they would subject the complainant to cruelty will not make out a
prima facie case under Section 498A.
10. Similarly, there is no material in support of the allegation of criminal breach
of trust and it will be an abuse of process of Court to permit the criminal
proceedings against them on general and omnibus allegations.
The impugned order of taking cognizance against these petitioners, along
with the entire criminal proceeding against these petitioners, named above,
is quashed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT
Uploaded
