Jharkhand High Court
Md. Jahid Sheikh @ Md. Jahid @ Md. Jahid ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 482 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 482 of 2018
1. Md. Jahid Sheikh @ Md. Jahid @ Md. Jahid Seikh
2. Jugni Devi @ Jugni Bibi @ Jugni Bibi @ Jugnu Bibi
3. Nisha Khatun @ Inteshan Khatun @ Nisha Khatoon
4. Md. Jamir @ Md. Jamir Sheikh
5. Chhotu Sheikh @ Daud @ Chhotu @ Daud @ Chhotu Sheikh Daud
6. Md. Kalim Sheikh @ Kalim Seikh ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Tanwi Khatoon ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
For the State : None
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
-----
06/29.01.2024 Heard Mr. Durga C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. On repeated
calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2018 in
connection with Dumka Mahila P.S. Case No.08/17, corresponding to G.R.
No.951/17, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Dumka.
3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the marriage of the
informant-Tanvi Khatoon was solemnized with Md. Jawed on 21.05.2017
with Muslim rites and customs and after marriage, the husband of the
informant lived for some time with the informant and she became pregnant.
It was further alleged that the informant's husband began to beat the
informant and also began to talk for another marriage. It was also alleged
that the informant's husband has taken the informant to Sadar Hospital,
Dumka on the pretense of treatment, but the pregnancy of informant was
aborted against her will on 01.09.2017. It was further alleged that after
abortion, the accused told the informant to bring Rs.20,000/- and
motorcycle and they will keep and stated that as the informant has not
agreed, her pregnancy was aborted and thereafter they ousted the
informant after assaulting her from the house. It was also alleged that on
22.09.2017 at 09:00 a.m., the informant's husband again came to the house
of the informant and abused and assaulted her and again demanded dowry,
but on alarm when the family members and neighbours came there, Md.
Jawed fled away.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are in-laws of opposite party no.2 and the husband of the
informant is not the petitioner in the present case. He further submits that
only general and omnibus allegations are there against the petitioners and
in view of that, the police has not sent up these petitioners for trial,
however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against
them. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take
cognizance against two dead persons, namely, Hasim Seikh and Yunus
Seikh. He submits that they left for their heavenly abode in the year 2015
itself, whereas, the FIR was instituted on 30.10.2017 and in view of that,
the entire criminal proceedings, so far as these petitioners are concerned,
may kindly be quashed.
5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the
allegations are there and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly been
pleased to take cognizance. He submits that under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
circumspection is required by the High Court and in view of that, quashing
of the entire criminal proceeding is not made out.
6. The Court has gone through the materials on record including the
order taking cognizance. In the contents of the FIR, the entire allegations
are against the husband of the informant and the husband is not the
petitioner in the present case. There are only general and omnibus
allegations against the petitioners. It further appears that the police has not
submitted charge-sheet against these petitioners, however, the learned
Court has been pleased to take cognizance against them. It is admitted
position that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against
two dead persons. If any case is made out, i.e. against the husband only.
7. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his
relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result
in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. It was found that many of such
complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint,
implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints
lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused, but also to the
complainant. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported
in (2018) 10 SCC 472.
8. How the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are
being filed in the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations, was subject matter in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.
9. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana , reported
in (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the
Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and 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.
10. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute
with the object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives
against a wife, which is being misused nowadays, as has been noticed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. How all the relatives are
being implicated in false cases was the subject matter before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow to continue
the proceedings against the present petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law. Accordingly, so far as the present petitioners and aforesaid
two dead persons, namely, Hasim Seikh and Yunus Seikh are concerned, the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
02.01.2018 in connection with Dumka Mahila P.S. Case No.08/17,
corresponding to G.R. No.951/17, pending in the Court of the learned
A.C.J.M., Dumka are quashed.
12. The learned Court will proceed in accordance with law against the
husband of the informant, namely, Md. Jawed.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
