Jharkhand High Court
Pooja Devi @ Pooja Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.478 of 2022
------
1. Pooja Devi @ Pooja Thakur
2. Subhita Devi
3. Onkar Nath Thakur .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chanda Thakur .... .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Special P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No.07 Dated : 12.01.2024
Petitioners are the in-laws and the revision application is preferred
against the order rejecting the discharge petition for the offence under Section
498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the case of the informant, Bokaro Mahila P.S. Case
No.20/2020 was registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the written
typed report submitted by the informant, Chanda Thakur on 01.10.2020.
3. As per the F.I.R., the informant was married to Amresh Thakur on
05.02.2014, on payment of dowry of Rupees Eight Lakh cash and other
articles valued at Rupees Four Lakhs.
4. It is alleged that father-in-law and mother-in-law used to complain
about insufficient dowry paid and renewed demand of Rupees Seven Lakh for
furnishing house of her husband at Delhi. In May, 2014, husband of the
complainant went to Delhi and it is alleged that in June, 2014, the petitioner
no.3, who is father-in-law attempted to forcibly establish physical relationship
with her. The in-laws persisted with the unlawful demand. During her
pregnancy, she was diagnosed of blood test HBSAg+. All the in-laws
variously abused and assaulted her. Her father was forced to meet unlawful
demand.
5. The police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted
charge sheet based on which, cognizance was taken.
6. The order has been impugned on the ground that the petitioner no.1 is
married sister-in-law, who was married much before the marriage of opposite
party no.2 to her brother. Petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.3
is father-in-law.
7. The entire incidence took place at Delhi and no part of the offence
was committed at Bokaro, therefore, the Court at Bokaro had no jurisdiction to
enter into the enquiry or trial.
8. Earlier the informant herself had filed informatory petition
no.856/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 12.11.2014
asserting that her brother and cousin were instigating her to file the criminal
case against her in-laws.
9. As a matter of fact, the marital dispute between opposite party no.2
and her husband has already ended in a compromise regarding which a joint
compromise petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro at the stage
of bail. On the basis of compromise, her husband was enlarged on bail by the
learned Court below.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer before
this Court on 12.07.2022 wherein she has stated that there was no material and
there was no evidence against the family members of the informant. The main
contention is that none of the witness have stated anything against the married
sister-in-law (Petitioner no.1) and petitioner no.2 (mother-in-law).
11. As far as the informant is concerned, she has made only general and
omnibus allegation against these two petitioners. Reliance is placed on
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Versus The State Of Bihar& Others,
(2022) 6 SCC 599.
12. Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of
informant/opposite party no.2 have defended the impugned order. It is
submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, a mini trial is not required to
be held. There are materials to make out a prima facie case against all these
petitioners. As far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is submitted that there is
specific allegation against petitioner no.1 in the F.I.R. In September, 2019, she
had gone to Delhi and had stayed with the complainant for three weeks and
used to subject her to mental cruelty. She used to bring pressure upon her to
divorce her husband.
13. With regard to petitioner no.2, there is specific allegation against her
that she along with other in-laws used to make complain about the dowry and
had made unlawful demand. At times, petitioner no.2 used to slap her.
14. Personal liberty is jealously safeguarded but the Constitution, which
finds its echo in different provisions of the criminal procedure code. The
provision of discharge gives an opportunity of judicial scrutiny of the
materials on the basis of which accused is proposed to be put on trial. Courts
are not post offices and this stage is not an empty formality to permit anyone
to be prosecuted without sufficient materials. In any case, the Courts cannot
become blind to the social realities, where there is a tendency to implicate all
the in-laws in cases arising out of marital dispute. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
drawn attention to this aspect from time to time. It shall be relevant to quote
some of the observations.
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
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.
15. In the present case, petitioner no.1 is the married sister-in-law of the
complainant and admittedly was not sharing the common household with her.
Only one incidence has been cited in the complaint that she had stayed with
her at Delhi for three weeks, when interfered with her marital relationship.
Other allegations against her, are general and omnibus in nature. On these
materials even if the allegations are assumed to be true, no offence will be
made out.
Under the circumstance, the revision application preferred on behalf
of Petitioner no.1 is allowed, the impugned order, to that extent is set aside.
There is no infirmity with respect to the rejection of discharge
petition preferred by the petitioner nos.2 and 3.
Revision petition is accordingly allowed with respect to Petitioner
no.1 and rejected with respect to Petitioners nos.2 &3.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
