Dr. Amand Bhaskar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5155 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Amand Bhaskar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 1074 of 2022

             Dr. Amand Bhaskar, aged about 41 years, S/o Ram Chandra
             Prasad, R/o Flat No. 209, Subha Omkara, Balaji Layout,
             Electronics City, Phase 1, P.O.- Hebbagodi, P.S.- Hebbagodi,
             Dist.- Bangalore, Karnataka                     ...... Petitioner
                                  Versus
          1.

The State of Jharkhand

2. Sweta Suman, D/o Rajesh Prasad presently residing at Quarter No. 1214, Sector 8/B, Street No. 19, B.S. City, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-9, Dist.- Bokaro (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties

For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S.Nanda,Adv.

   For the State              :    Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, Spl. PP


                                  PRESENT

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of the opp. party no. 2, in spite of repeated calls though an advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opp. party no. 2.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2019 whereby learned JMFC, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 498A of IPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant married the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh on 28.04.2017 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act. The co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh cheated the complainant by posing as an unmarried person, at the time of their marriage. The co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh used to take money from the complainant and used to meet the complainant outside Bokaro. In 2019, the complainant came to know that the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh was married person and he is father of eleven years old son. The co-

accused Deepak Kumar Singh admitted his guilt, tendered apology, promised to return the money and expressed his consent for the complainant to marry elsewhere. On 30.05.2019, the complainant met the petitioner and his family members at Ranchi. The marriage was fixed. The previous relationship of the complainant was disclosed. The marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 07.07.2019. At the time of marriage, Rs. 10,00,000/- and jwellery were given. The marriage was solemnized at Rajgir, Nalanda. After marriage, the complainant went to Benguluru where the petitioner used to work and thereafter, they went for honeymoon to Goa. After returning from the honeymoon, the petitioner told the complainant to bring her paternal property and income from the school but the same was refused by the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner asked the address and phone number of the co- accused Deepak Kumar Singh, the same was disclosed by the complainant. The petitioner told the complainant to talk to co- accused Deepak Kumar Singh as Rs. 5,00,000/- was due and payable by the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh to the complainant. The complainant demanded money from the co- accused Deepak Kumar Singh. The petitioner informed the complainant that the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh has made a fake I.D. in a social media and inappropriate photographs of the complainant was sent by the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh to the petitioner and his family members. On 10.09.2019, they came back to Ranchi. On 11.09.2019, the complainant went to Bokaro and the petitioner went back to Ranchi, promising to return on 14.09.2019 to come back and take her to Bengaluru but he did not do so. Thereafter, the complainant went to Bengaluru with her sister but the petitioner did not recognize her and declined that she is her wife. On 10.09.2019, the pregnancy test of the complainant was found negative. The co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh, filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, against the complainant in the Family Court, Bokaro vide Case

No. 442 of 2019 and bringing out a copy of that, the same was given by the co-accused to the petitioner to file a case declaring the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner, null and void and thereafter, both the petitioner and the co-accused, physically, mentally and financially ill-treated the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of enquiry witnesses, learned JMFC, Bokaro found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 498A of IPC and took cognizance of the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of the court to the copy of the certified copy of the judgment passed by learned Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit Case no. 658 of 2019, submits that vide the judgment dated 30.07.2022, the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the opp. party no. 2, has been declared null and void under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of nullity of the marriage solemnized between the parties, was granted to the petitioner. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety as made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, still none of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 or 498A of IPC is made out and the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Spl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2019 and submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is

pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation of any entrustment of any property to the petitioner or dishonest misappropriation thereof by the petitioner and in the absence of these essential ingredients, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out.

7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had any intention to deceive the complainant since beginning of their relationship between them, under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out.

8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, there is a bald allegation against the petitioner of unlawful demand of property of the father of the complainant and her income, to be brought by the complainant and there is no allegation of any harassment caused to the complainant, in connection with any unlawful demand and admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the opp. party no. 2 was null and void, since at the time of marriage of the complainant with the petitioner, the complainant had a subsisting marriage with the co-accused Deepak Kumar Singh. So the petitioner cannot be said to be the lawful husband of the complainant. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is also not made out against the petitioner and because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 1722 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 10th May, 2024 Smita /AFR