Jharkhand High Court

Dhananjay Pahadi @ Dhananjay Kr. Pahadi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P. (Cr.) No. 916 of 2023
                 Dhananjay Pahadi @ Dhananjay Kr. Pahadi, aged about 31 years, S/o
                 Late Bishwanath Pahari, R/o Chaturbhuj Institute, Thana Road, P.O. &
                 P.S. Chakradharpur, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                        -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Yogita Pahadi, W/o Shyam Sundar Pahadi, R/o Pragati Nagar, Station
                 Road, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikella-Kharswan, A/P,
                 R/o Hensal, Rajnagar, P.O. & P.S. Rajnagar, Dist. Seraikella-Kharswan
                                                                     ... Respondents
                                             -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----
            For the Petitioner        : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
            For the State             : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
            For Respondent No.2       : None
                                             -----

09/19.11.2024     On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of respondent

no.2. Notice upon respondent no.2 has already been effected, however,

respondent no.2 has not appeared as yet. With a view to provide further

one more opportunity to respondent no.2, the matter was adjourned on

18.09.2024 and further on 29.10.2024, however, till date, no appearance is

made on behalf of respondent no.2 and, as such, this petition is being heard

in absence of respondent no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2021

passed by the learned C.J.M., Seraikella in connection with Seraikella

(Mahila) P.S. Case No.03/2020, G.R. Case No.557/2021, pending in the

Court of the learned C.J.M., Seraikella.

4. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant-respondent

no.2 was married to Shyamsundar Pahadi on 01.07.2014 and after marriage

accused persons started mentally and physically harassing her and started

asking her to bring money from her maternal house. It was further alleged

that she struggled for 5 years due to which her treatment is going on in

AIIMS. It was also alleged that in absence of her husband, the petitioner

used to come in drunken state and misbehaved with her and that co-

accused used to threaten and assault her which she informed her husband

whereupon her husband took her to his work place after which she was

treated at AIIMS Delhi and thereafter when she came back again she was

assaulted and exploited. It was further alleged that during Annaprasan

ceremony of her son, co-accused tried to assault in front of relatives and

also ceremony took place in verandah as other rooms were locked. It was

also alleged that on 11.03.2020, when she came along with her husband

and children, then all accused persons drove them out stating that her

father had promised to Rs.10 Lakhs and upon objection by her husband,

they were threatened to life. It was also alleged that thereafter she called

her father. However, when he was also threatened and after 4 months,

when she came back then the door was locked and not opened even after

much persuasion.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

happened to be the brother-in-law of the informant. He submits that there

are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons

including the petitioner and the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law

and maternal uncle-in-law and they had moved before this Court in Cr.M.P.

No.1538 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2023 and the

entire criminal proceeding was quashed. He further submits that the

informant was residing along with her husband at Barelly at the time of

alleged occurrence and the husband is not made accused in the present

case, however, the in-laws and this petitioner have been made accused. He

submits that on 13.06.2020, the informant has made a complaint before

Mahila Police Station, Seraikella, wherein she has given a complete different

story and subsequently in order to make out the case of serious nature, she

lodged the present case by developing the story. He then submits that

earlier complaint made by the informant are contained in Annexures-2 and

2/1. He also submits that the in-laws of the informant had earlier filed

complaint case against the informant before Adityapur police station on

14.03.2020 with regard to the dispute being made by respondent no.2 for

the property of the family. He submits that thereafter the present case has

been lodged on 27.06.2020 i.e. after more than 3 months. He submits that

in view of that, maliciously the present case has been lodged and the

learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 498-A and

34 of the IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that

the allegations are there.

7. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that

admittedly the petitioner happened to be the brother-in-law of respondent

no.2. The in-laws of respondent no.2 have lodged complaint against the

informant before Adityapur police station on 14.03.2020, whereas, the

present case has been lodged on 27.06.2020. Prior to lodging of the present

FIR, another complaint was made by the informant before Mahila Police

Station, Seraikella, in which, allegation with regard to present FIR is not

made, which further suggests that only to make out the case, further story

was tried to be made out to implicate the petitioner. In the contents of the

FIR, there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner.

Further, the case of the co-accused, who are in-laws of respondent no.2 has

already been allowed and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1538 of 2022, vide order dated

27.02.2023, contained in Annexure-4.

8. Such type of cases are being filed in the heat of the moment over

trivial issues without proper deliberations and this aspect of the matter has

been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti

Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 667].

Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at

an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

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 complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."

9. Little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume

serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which

elders of the family are falsely implicated by the wives. This aspect of the

matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 741].

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of

Telangana, reported in [(2018) 14 SCC 452] has observed that the

Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes

pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.

11. The above line of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly

suggest that how Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused

nowadays.