Jharkhand High Court

Amrit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... ... on 1 February, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                     1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 2460 of 2020

    1. Amrit Kumar
    2. Manoj Prasad @ Manoj Kumar
    3. Nand Kumar Gupta @ Nand Gupta
    4. Nitu Gupta @ Neetu Devi
                                                 ....   ...Petitioners
                                 Versus
        The State of Jharkhand & Anr.            ..... ...Opp. Parties

        CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. J.K. Mishra, Advocate For the State :Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vijyant Verma, Advocate

7/ Dated:-01.02.2024 Heard Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel for the State

and Mr. Vijyant Verma, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire

criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated

21.02.2019 in connection with Complaint Case No. 868 of 2018,

pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that

the marriage between OP No. 2 and Petitioner was solemnized on

13.12.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals at the house of O.P No., 2

at Palamu (Daltangonj). After solemnization of marriage, O.P No. 2

came to her matrimonial home to lead a happy conjugal life. O.P

No. 2 further stated to the effect that on the first night of the

marriage her husband (Petitioner No. 1 herein) was aware about her

menstrual cycle, Still, committed forceful and cruel unnatural sexual

intercourse thrice. Thereupon, OP No.2 was unable to walk and

move. She further stated that certain aspects she cannot mention

and the same can be factored in from the Written Application made

to The Woman Commission. Thereafter, everyday and every night

her husband forcefully committed unnatural sexual intercourse

number of times by abusing the OP NO. 2 in worst and filthy

language.

O.P No. 2 further stated that her husband confessed before

her to the effect that he used to about libido with prostitutes from

his early age and he concealed this fact from the OP No. 2 and her

parents at the time of solemnization of marriage.

It is further alleged that her husband used to share the

personal happening and mis-happening and unnatural sexual

abuses with Neetu Devi (Petitioner No. 4 herein and Accused No. 5

of the Complaint), his friends and others. Such acts amounted to

defaming her as well as outraging her modesty.

On being protested by OP No. 2, other accused persons

namely, Manoj Prasad, Wife of Manoj PD, Nand Gupta and Neetu

Devi abused the OP No. 2, and willfully and deliberately supported

Amrit Kumar (Petitioner No. I herein) by saying that Amrit is right

and whatever he is saying and wanting follow him and satisfy him

physically.

O.P No.2 conceived, and the accused persons started

demanding Rs 10,00,000/ from the OP No. 2 before having any

child. Having known this fact, Nand Gupta (Petitioner No. 3 herein

and Accused No. 4 of Complaint) and Neetu Devi (Petitioner No. 4

herein and Accused No,5) arrived at Tehata.

It is further alleged that all the accused persons assaulted OP

No. 2 after knowing about the latter's pregnancy and deliberately

caused miscarriage by means of fits and fats on April 2016.

Subsequently, for continuance of the matrimonial

relationship Rs 10,00,000/ (10 lakh) was demanded from the OP

No. 2. Thereafter, Parents of OP No. 2 made an arrangement for

establishing a business for the Amrit Kumar (Petitioner herein)at

Ranchi, Thereafter, OP No. 2 and her husband shifted at Harmu

Road, Ranchi at Baba Enclave on May, 2016. On the funds provided

by OP No. 2 parents, her husband opened a Retail Multistore shop

in the name and style of "Sawaria Retail", later changed its name to

"Ranchi Retail" at 2nd Floor, Galaxia Mall, Piska More, Ratu Road,

Ranchi. While staying at Ranchi, her husband forcefully intoxicated

poison to her on 10.07.2016, Thereafter, she got admitted to Orchid

Hospital by Shakher Singh (her brother) and later discharged on

18.08.2016. O.P No.2 was subjected to torture and cruelty

physically, mentally and sexually for dowry demand time and again

and again, and she was admitted to Orchid Hospital on 30.05.2017

and discharged on 04.06.2017.

It is further stated that OP NO, 2 and her husband

shifted to Sangamdham Saraswati Apartment, Piska More, Ranchi.

The behavior of her husband (Petitioner herein) remained

unchanged and was subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse

without her consent. On being protested, her husband thrown her

out from his conjugal life on 19.05.2017 from their new place of

residence, Since then OP NO. 2 has been living with her parents and

relatives.Thereafter, OP NO, 2 submitted a Written Application

before The Woman Commission, Ranchi (Jharkhand) dated

29.05.2017 with a view to resolving the dispute. Thereafter, Notice

was issued to the husband (Petitioner herein) of OP NO. 2 for his

appearance on 13.06.2017 in Case No. 532/2017. However, the

husband failed to turn up. Next date was fixed for 06.07.2017, on

which the husband appeared, both sat together but no result came

out. It is further alleged that the husband assured her that the Next

Date would be intimated to her, however, no such date has been

intimated till date.

It is further alleged by the OP No. 2 that her husband

(Petitioner herein) having known about the Application made to the

Woman Commission, threatened to kill her as well as to remarry

another girl.

It is further alleged that during her stay, she was brutally

assaulted and humiliated by several means.

It is further alleged that Manoj PD (Petitioner No. 2 herein and

Accused No. 2), Wife of Manoj PD (Accused No. 3), Nand Gupta

(Petitioner No. 3 herein and Accused no. 4 in the Complaint) and

Neetu Devi (Petitioner No. 4 and Accused No. 5) abused and

mentally pressurized the Complainant over telephone besides

physical assault and miscarriage.

It is further stated that OP No. 2 approached Sukhdeo

Nagar Police Station, however, police advised her to take shelter of

the Court. Also, Woman Commission failed to take any action.

Hence, OP NO. 2 filed this Complaint before the Ld Court to take

cognizance, issue summon and punish the five Accused persons as

per law.

4. Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is husband of O.P. No.2,

petitioner no. 2 is uncle, petitioner no.3 is paternal uncle and

petitioner no. 4 is paternal aunt of O.P. No.2. He submits that

allegations are made that liquid of mosquito was administered in

the mouth of the complainant and to buttress this argument he

draws the attention of the Court to medical report of Orchid Hospital.

He submits that the complainant herself admitted that she has taken

the said liquid on her own wish. He further refers to paras 13 and 14

of the complaint petition and submits that allegations are made of

throwing out from his conjugal life on 19.05.2017 wherein para 13 it

has been disclosed that she was admitted in Orchid Hospital on

30.05.2017 and discharged on 04.06.2017. He submits that in view of

these two paragraphs the entire case of the complainant is

contradictory allegation. He submits that Matrimonial Suit No. 165 of

2017 was filed at Civil Court, Jehanabad by the husband of the O.P.

No.2 which has been suppressed in the complaint case. By way of

referring judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed in said matrimonial suit

he submits that inspite of receiving summons she was not appearing

in that case. He submits that present complaint case has been filed

on 27.02.2018 and cognizance has been taken on 21.02.2019. He

submits that the petitioners have been falsely made accused. He

submits that in the case of " R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab" AIR

1960 SC 866 where the allegations constitute an offence but there

is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or

manifestly fails to prove the charge, the Court can quashed the

proceeding. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal

proceeding may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that allegations

are there and by way of referring medical report he submits the

patient having eye opening with sudden LOC of Jew. He submits that

she was not in a position to state correct thing before the doctor. He

further submits that allegations are made in view of that entire

criminal proceeding may not be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned

court has taken cognizance on the complaint petition.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner no.1 is

husband of O.P. No.2. In the complaint petition so far petitioner nos.

2 to 4 are concerned there are general and omnibus allegations.

What role they played in torturing the O.P. No.2 that has not been

disclosed and they are said to be distant family members.

Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are said to be distant relative of the

husband of O.P. No.2 even the uncle of the O.P. No.2 has been

implicated on general and omnibus allegation.

8. Further in medical report it has been disclosed that she

has stated that she has consumed mosquito liquid wherein it has

been further stated that the complainant was having eye opening

with sudden LOC of Jew. In medical term LOC speaks of level of

consciousness and the report says that patient having eye opening

with sudden LOC of Jew. Thus, it is contradictory that can be

subject matter of the trial.

9. The entire family members are being roped in the

matrimonial litigation which was subject matter in the case of

"Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; (2012) 10

SCC 741 wherein para 21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which weentirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in

which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

10. Further, in the case of K. Subba Rao V. The State of

Telangana " (2018) 14 SCC 452 it has been observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that 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.

11. Coming to the facts of the present case the Court

finds that there are general and omnibus allegations so far

petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned and to allow the proceeding so

far petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned will amount the abuse of