Jharkhand High Court
Hriday Narayan Yadav @ Sanjog Yadav @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 641 of 2022
Hriday Narayan Yadav @ Sanjog Yadav @ Hiraday Narayan Yadav,
aged about 33 years, son of Shyam Narayan Yadav, resident of Village-
Barauli, P.O.- Barauli, P.S.-Bhimpura, Paragana Sikenderpur Garvi,
Tahsil Belthara Road, Dist.-Balia (Uttar Pradesh)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Soni Devi @ Soni Yadav, daughter of Late Ragho Yadav, wife of
Hriday Narayan Yadav @ Sanjog Yadav, resident of Sudamdih,
P.O.-Sudamdih, P.S.-Sudamdih, Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
: Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
27.06.2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and co-accused persons in
Complaint Case No. 554 of 2019 and directed to issue summons to
the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the
husband of the opposite party no.2-complainant after their marriage
on 10.06.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs made a further
demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and because of non-fulfillment of dowry
quarreled with the complainant and forcefully dropped her in her
paternal house. After much persuasion, the petitioner took the
complainant to her matrimonial house but insisted for demand of
additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner was also exhorting
his father to taunt the complainant and because of non-fulfillment of
dowry demand, the petitioner abandoned the complainant and went
to Gujarat. The complainant was assaulted by the relatives of the
petitioner and she was not provided food and water. When the
complainant intimated her parents about this ill-treatment and not
providing the complainant, food and water; there was a panchayati
but even then the petitioner did not agree for any settlement without
fulfillment of his dowry demand. The complainant has two
daughters out of the wedlock with the petitioner and the
complainant used to be taunted for giving birth to female children.
After returning from Gujarat the petitioner assaulted the
complainant and dropped the complainant and their two daughters
at the parental house of the complainant and also quarreled with the
mother and paternal family members of the complainant and as the
mother of the complainant came to her rescue, the petitioner also
manhandled the mother of the complainant. The mother of the
complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and the petitioner
took the complainant to Gujarat but at Gujarat also did not provide
food to the complainant and was telling the complainant, to earn her
livelihood herself and used to quarrel with her also and ultimately
dropped the complainant at her paternal house for non-fulfillment of
dowry demand of remaining Rs.1,50,000/-out of the said ₹ 2 lakhs;
as ₹ 50,000/-was paid by the mother of the complainant, as already
indicated above. Again the complainant was taken to her
matrimonial house but again treated her with cruelty because of
non-fulfillment of remaining dowry.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the
learned Magistrate, vide order dated 27.06.2019, found sufficient
material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the
offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the
allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its
entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
complainant herself fled away from her matrimonial house on
30.08.2011 with her stridhan without informing the members in her
matrimonial house and even though the petitioner filed a petition
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life
but the complainant did not resume the conjugal life with the
petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that the complainant has
given birth to an illegitimate child. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a
divorce case in Family Court, Balia, Uttar Pradesh. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as made in the criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for
quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
27.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 554 of 2019 and
submits that the very fact that the petitioner has the audacity of
questioning the chastity of the complainant in this criminal
miscellaneous petition by claiming his own daughter to be an
illegitimate child given birth by his wife being the complainant itself;
shows the obnoxious conduct of the petitioner. It is next submitted
by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 that there is explicit materials in the record to show the
cruelty of worst order perpetrated by the petitioner by harassing the
complainant with a view to coerce her and her relatives to meet the
unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/- initially and subsequently for
Rs.1,50,000/- as Rs.50,000/- out of the said demand could only be
paid by the mother of the complainant and on account of failure by
the poor mother of the complainant to meet such unlawful demand
of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and
the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is direct
and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed
the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the
entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.06.2019
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with Complaint Case No. 554 of 2019 and therefore, this
criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that as already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and if the allegations made
against the petitioner as already indicated above in the foregoing
paragraphs of the judgment are considered to be true in its entirety
certainly, the same is sufficient to constitute to offence punishable
under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
8. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008)
8 SCC 781 that a legitimate prosecution ought not to be stifled at the
initial stage in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The contention of the petitioner that the allegations against the
petitioner are false is a defence which he can take during the trial but
the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding
or the order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2019 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with
Complaint Case No. 554 of 2019 in view of the serious nature of
allegation against the petitioner of perpetrating cruelty of worst
order against the complainant.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd April, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
