S.M. Tanweer @ Tanweer Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 912 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

S.M. Tanweer @ Tanweer Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

       IN      THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 600 of 2018
       1. S.M. Tanweer @ Tanweer Alam
       2. Talat Shabana @ Halash Sabana
       3. Shahina Perween                               .....   ...   Petitioners
                                  Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand.
       2. Rubina Parveen                              .....     ...   Opposite Parties
                                  with
                             Cr.M.P. No. 3170 of 2013
       Syed Mohammad Sajid                              .....   ...   Petitioner
                                    Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Rubina Parveen                               ..... ...        Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.

      For the State             :        Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
                                :        Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate.
                                ------
08/ 30.01.2024     In both these cases common complaint case and the order

taking cognizance are under challenge, that's why, both these matters are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. and Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State in respective cases and Mr. Amritanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 3170 of 2013.

3. In both these petitions, prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C.P. Case No. 776 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 on 18.10.2009 as per the Muslim Rites and customs and at the time of marriage, father of the complainant had given various household articles worth more than Rs.1.00 Lakh. Soon after the marriage, the accused persons started assaulting and misbehaving with the complainant on the pretext that she had not brought sufficient dowry.

After expiry of one month, the husband (accused No.1) went to Qatar (Dubai) for the purpose of employment leaving the complainant with other family members at Dhanbad. It is alleged by the complainant that all the accused persons misbehaved with her and asked her to tell her father to given the dowry amount. Accused No.1 (husband) had come to India in August, 2010 but he along with other accused persons again assaulted the complainant.

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 600 of 2018 are the brother- in-law, married sister-in-law and the neighbour respectively of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3170 of 2013 is the husband of the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that much prior to lodging of the complaint case by the O.P. No. 2, the petitioner namely Syed Mohammad Sajid (husband of the O.P. No. 2) has pronounced talaq according to Shariat law on the grounds mentioned in talaqnama and offered a sum of Rs. 11000/- as Dainmehar and Iddat expense a sum of Rs. 21000/-, but the O.P. No. 2 has refused to accept the same. He further submits that the husband of the O.P. No. 2 has acknowledged the written talaqnama dated 18.03.2013 to the O.P. No. 2 on 19.03.2013. He further submits that the above Dainmehar and Iddat expenses were also sent by Money Order to the O.P. No. 2, but she again refused to accept the same. He further submits that the said talaq was confirmed by an order dated 21.04.2013 by the Darul Efta, Emaratsharia, Phulwarisharif, Patna. He submits that the said court is competent to confirm the talaq. He submits after the talaq, the O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint petition. He submits that the husband of the O.P. No. 2 was residing at Qatar (Saudi Arabia) and he was regularly transferring the amount for maintenance of the O.P. No. 2 and a house was also purchased by the husband in the joint name of the husband and O.P. No. 2 at Asansol (West Bengal). He submits that even after the talaq, he has left the said house to the O.P. No. 2 and that house is being used by the O.P. No. 2. In these backgrounds, he submits that the entire criminal prosecution has maliciously been filed against the petitioners.

6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 3170 of 2013 submits that the case is made out and in view of the these petitions may not be interfered with at this stage. He

submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance.

7. Learned A.P.Ps. appearing for State appearing in respective cases submit that the learned court has taken the cognizance on the complaint case.

8. It is an admitted position that the O.P. No. 2 was married with Syed Mohammad Sajid, who is petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3170 of 2013. The husband of the O.P. No. 2 was residing after the marriage at Qatar (Saudi Arabia) for the livelihood, which is also admitted in the complaint case and it has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 that the husband was sending regular payment for maintaining the O.P. No. 2. The talaq was already taken place on 19.03.2013, which was affirmed by the Shariyat Court on 21.04.2013 and the complaint case was filed on 23.03.2013, which itself suggests that the filing of the complaint was afterthought. Further it has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 that the house was taken in the joint name of the husband and wife and now the same was being used by the O.P. No. 2.

9. All these backgrounds clearly suggests that maliciously the present case has been filed against the petitioners and even the neighbour, who is the petitioner No. 3 in Cr.M.P. No. 600 of 2018 has not been spared and the case is registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which clearly suggests that how Section 498-A IPC is being misused by way of filing the false case.

10. The term relative was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha Verus State by Inspector of Police & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757.

11. Thus, in view of the said judgment, it is a clear that no case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioner No. 3 Shahina Perween, in Cr.M.P. No. 600 of 2018, who is neighbour of the O.P. No. 2.

12. In matrimonial dispute, by way of casual reference to family members and even unmarried sister and elder brother of the husband are being made accused. Reference may be made to the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-18, it has been held as follows:-

"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter 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 Section 498 A, 406 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."

13. Coming to the facts of the present case, what has been disclosed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that maliciously the present complaint case has been filed against the petitioners and further in the complaint case, there are general and omnibus allegations against these petitioners.

14. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C.P. Case No. 776 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.

15. Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-