Amar Nath Goswami Aged About 64 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 875 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amar Nath Goswami Aged About 64 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                        Cr. M.P. No.2022 of 2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No.2022 of 2022
                                        ------

1. Amar Nath Goswami aged about 64 years son of Late Badri Nath Goswami

2. Kiran Devi aged about 53 years wife of Amar Nath Goswami

3. Dhananjay Kumar Goswami aged about 34 years son of Amar Nath Goswami

4. Anjoy Goswami aged about 32 years son of Amar Nath Goswami Petitioner no.1 to 4 are resident of village Bharawpur P.O. and police station Laheri, District Nalanda (Bihar)

5. Ajay Goswami aged about 41 years son of Amar Nath Goswami

6. Namrita Goswami aged about 37 years wife of Ajoy Goswami Petitioner no. 5 and 6 are residents of Flat no.C17A, FF, Ardec City, Gurgaon P.O. and police station Gurgaon District Gudgaon (Hariyana) ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Archana Goswami wife of Vijay Goswami resident of village Jogipatti (Goswammi Patti) P.O. and police station- Jharia, District-

            Dhanbad                                   ...            Opposite Parties
                                          ------
             For the Petitioners          : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
                                            Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
             For the State                : Mr. Prabhu D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2            : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
                                            ------
                                       PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    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 and

set aside the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st

Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1828 of 2017 whereby and where under

cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the

petitioners and also for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint

Case No.1828 of 2017 which is pending in the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 being the father-in-

law, petitioner No.2 being the mother-in-law, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 being the

brothers-in-law and petitioner No.6 being the sister-in-law (Gotani) of the

complainant, have treated the complainant with cruelty and demanded dowry

of Rs.5,00,000/- and taunted her by telling that better match could have been

arranged for the husband of the complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class, Dhanbad, basing upon the materials available in the record i.e., the

complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry

witnesses; found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners and also

found that the case inter alia for having been for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act is made out inter alia against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &

Others v. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and submits

that it is a settled principle of law that when the allegations made against the

accused persons are general and omnibus in nature, such case do not warrant

prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another v.

State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 paragraph-35 of

which reads as under:-

"35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection."

and submits that there is a growing tendency to falsely implicate the

relatives of the husband in the offences by misusing the provision of Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the victims.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of

this Court passed in the case of Maimun Nisha & Another vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.2293 of 2022 dated 23.11.2023

wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam

& Others v. State of Bihar & Others (supra) as well as the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741

paragraphs-18 and 25 of which read as under:-

"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-inlaw to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

and submits that in the facts of that case, as there was absence of specific

allegations against the petitioners of that case, this Court quashed and set aside

the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners of that case, hence, it is

submitted that the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1828 of 2017 and also the entire

criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1828 of 2017 which is pending in

the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set

aside.

7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 on the other hand oppose the prayer quashing and setting

aside the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1828 of 2017 and also the entire criminal proceedings

of Complaint Case No.1828 of 2017 and submit that in the complaint, several

allegations have been made against the petitioners for having committed the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being

without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there

is absolutely no specific allegation against the petitioners. The allegations

against the petitioners are general and omnibus that they demanded dowry

and they treated the complainant with cruelty without specifying in what

manner, on which date and which place any cruelty was inflicted upon the

complainant by the petitioners; nor is there any allegation as to who, when and

where made the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/-from the complainant.

9. Hence, in view of the principle of law settled in the cases of Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others (supra) and Geeta

Mehrotra & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), this Court

is of the considered view that in the absence of any specific allegations against

the petitioners, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against them will

amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated

29.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P.

Case No.1828 of 2017 and also the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint

Case No.1828 of 2017 which is pending in the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and

set aside.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1828 of 2017 and also the entire

criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1828 of 2017 which is pending in

the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set

aside qua the petitioners named above only.

11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th of January, 2024 AFR/ Animesh