Jharkhand High Court
Suman Kumari @ Suman Aged About 29 Years ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3142 of 2024
------
Suman Kumari @ Suman aged about 29 years Daughter of Anand
Prasad R/o Thakur, Near Somar Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Murhu,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
------
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 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to
quash and set aside the First Information Report and consequential
proceedings in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.40 of 2023 registered for
the offences under Section 498A/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code and
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and qua the petitioner only.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the husband of the informant
is having illicit relationship with the petitioner and when the husband of the
informant met with an accident and was undergoing treatment in the hospital,
the petitioner was also with him, in the hospital and the husband of the
informant kept the petitioner at his duty place at Dhanbad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector
of Police and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757 paragraph-18 of which
reads as under:-
"18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a
concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word
"relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be
conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has
taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not
arise."
and submits that at best the allegation against the petitioner is that she is
a girlfriend of the husband of the informant or even a concubine of the. It is
then submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners,
are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which
the FIR has been registered, is made out against the petitioner.
5. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the
case of Vaishali Janbaji Gawande vs. State of Maharashtra passed in Criminal
Application (APL) No.622 of 2020 dated 11.07.2024 and the judgment of High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Chandhini T.K. vs. State of Kerala
passed in CRL. MC. No.5681 of 2021 dated 03.08.2023, hence, it is next
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that
the case is at the nascent stage and in view of the serious nature of allegation
against the petitioner, the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. ought
not be allowed and the Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. 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 the only allegation against the petitioner is that she is the girlfriend or
a concubine of the husband of the informant and she was with the husband of
the informant on some occasions. So even if it is considered that the petitioner
is a girlfriend or a concubine of the husband of the informant, still as she
cannot be termed as a relative of the informant; therefore, even if the
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be to in their entirety,
still the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC is not made out against
the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed
any offence upon the informant/victim nor is there any allegation of the
petitioner, being involved in any common intention with the co-accused
persons.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner are considered to
be true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which the FIR has been
registered is made out against the petitioner. Hence, continuation of this FIR
and the consequential criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount
to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the First Information
Report and consequential proceedings in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No.40 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 498A/323/504/506/34
of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner only.
9. Accordingly, the First Information Report and consequential proceedings
in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.40 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 498A/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code and 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th of November, 2024
AFR/ Abhiraj
