Mohit Jhunjhunwala vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9239 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mohit Jhunjhunwala vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2024

Author: Ratnaker Bhengra

Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. Rev. No. 947 of 2023

Mohit Jhunjhunwala, son of Sri Girdhar Jhunjhunwala @ Sri Girdhari Kumar
Jhunjhunwala, R/o. B-601, Royal Gardens Nageshwar Colony, PO Patna,
GPO, PS Kotwali Thana, District Patna (Bihar).               .. .. ..Petitioner
                                --VERSUS--
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pooja Chirania, wife of Mohit Jhunjhunwala, duaghter of Sri Bajrang Lal
Chirania at present residing at 65, SPG Mission Compound, Mahulsai, PO
Chaibasa, PS Sadar, Chaibasa, District Singhbhum        ... ..Opp. Parties
                                     with
                          Cr. Rev. No. 1254 of 2023

Pooja Chirania, wife of Mohit Jhunjhunwala, daughter of Sri Bajrang Lal
Chirania at present residing at 65, SPG Mission Compound, Mahulsai, PO
Chaibasa, PS Sadar, Chaibasa, District: West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
                                                            .. .. ..Petitioner
                                --VERSUS--
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mohit Jhunjhunwala, son of Sri Girdhari Jhunjhunwala, R/o B-601, Royal
Gardens Nageshwar Colony, PO - Patna GPO, PS- Kotwali thana, Distt.
Patna (Bihar).                                            ... ..Opp. Parties
                                   ---------

CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

---------

             For the Husband : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
             For the State      : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP;
                                  Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
             For the Wife       : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
                                   ---------

07/DATED: 13-09-2024

                  IA No. 1612 of 2024 in Cr.Rev. No. 947 of 2023

On call, the learned counsel for the parties have appeared.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered a photocopy of the certified copy of order dated 6.9.2024.

3. Taken on Board.

4. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Mohit Jhunjhunwala for staying the order of distress warrant dated 5.1.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 68 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa, during pendency of the present criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision application has been filed for setting-aside the order dated

31.05.2023 passed in Original Maintenance case no. 68/2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder petition under section 125 Cr.P.C filed by Opposite party no. 2 has been allowed and direction has been given to the petitioner to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the Opposite Party no. 2 payable by 10 th day of each succeeding month. The maintenance amount will be payable from the date of application i.e. on 20.09.2022. Petitioner was further directed to make payment of all the arrears amount of maintenance amount in 08 (Eight) equal installments in addition to the regular maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month. It is further stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an execution case and in that case distress warrant dated 05.01.2024 has been issued against the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that on 2.2.2024 on joint submissions of the parties, the matter has been referred to the Member Secretary, JHALSA for setting the dispute by way of mediation on 24.2.2024, however, he submits that the learned court below is proceeding in the execution case despite the fact that the matter has been referred to JHALSA , Ranchi and fixed the case on 24.2.2024. Meanwhile, report of the mediation has been received wherein it is indicated that the parties could not settle the dispute. Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it is stated that the opposite party no.2 namely Puja Chirania has filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., wherein at paragraph 8, she has mentioned that on the intervening night on 25.06.2022, the petitioner along with his family members driven her out from her matrimonial house, then she informed the occurrence to her father and her brother and on 25.06.2022 itself at night, the police came to the matrimonial home of the opposite party no. 2 and gave her protection and in the morning on 26.06.2022 her brothers came to Patna, thereafter, she came to her parents' house. It is furtehr stated that father of the petitioner has made an application under Right to Information Act to the officer-in-charge of Budha Colony, Police Station, Patna, which was replied vide memo no. 1917/2024 dated 24.07.2024, wherein it is categorically mentioned that as per the records available in the Budha Colony Police Station that on 25-26.06.2022 in the night from 12:30 till next morning, Puja Chirani wife of Mohit Jhunjhunwala has not come to the Budha Colony Police Station, which shows she has been

making false statement in her maintenance petition as it is only for the purpose to save her skin for committing wrong. It is stated that further at paragraph 9 of the petition u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., she has made statement that she has made several efforts to reside with her husband at her working place but it is material to mention herein that the petitioner has never resided at Bangalore, which is working place of the petitioner. On the other hand, after some days of marriage, the petitioner got service in a company situated at Bangalore but since it was Covid period, the petitioner was directed to perform his work from his own house itself, i.e. work from home and hence, there was no nay occasion for the petitioner to reside at his working place rather the work from home was in operation and hence this statement is also absolutely wrong. It is further stated that the petitioner and his family members have been demanding additional dowry from her and therefore she has filed a case bearing Chaibasa Mahila PS Case No. 06 of 2022 under sections 498A/ 341/323/506, 354 ( C), 34 of IPC and under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The OP No.2 has filed a Protest bearing Complaint Case No. 341 of 2023 in which vide order dated 3.8.2024 the learned court below has passed a detailed order which is as under:

"... While going through the documents available on record and the copies of chatting of WhatsApp group named "we forever"

no element appears against the father-in-law Girdhari Jhunjhunwala in G.R. Case No.40/2023 nor any message from the side of said Girdhari Jhunjhunwala was sent in the said group against the complainant. It also transpires before this Court that there appears no elements for demand of dowry as no any proof presently has been furnished by the complainant for demand of dowry or payment of dowry to the accused person.

Therefore, after going through the material brought till now on behalf of the complainant, I found and hold that there are no sufficient materials to proceed further for the offences u/s of I.P.C. 498A/341/323/506/354(C)/34 of I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused namely person Girdhari Jhunjhunwala. Hence, this instant Complaint Case No. 341/2023 is hereby dismissed."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 6.9.2024 which has been filed by him today itself and submitted that after issuance of distress warrant, out of Rs. 8,05,000/- he has paid Rs. 5,50,000/- and now he is willing to pay the remaining amount through monthly installments and therefore, distress warrant issued against the petitioner may be stayed.

8. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the

prayer made in the present interlocutory application and submitted that after issuance of distress warrant the petitioner has started making payment which shows that the petitioner does not want to make payment. She has further stated that arrears from the date of application are also pending. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.9.2019 in the case of Pratima Devi and another v. Anand Prakash passed in Cr. Appeal No. 1399 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 7203 of 2019.

9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, noted their submissions and also the contents of supplementary affidavit which has been filed and also noted that after issuance of distress warrant, substantial amount has been paid and the petitioner has also submitted that he will continue to pay maintenance amount in monthly installments, distress warrant dated 5.1.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 68 of 2022 is stayed.

10. However, if the petitioner fails to make payments, the learned court below may proceed in accordance with law.

11. IA No. 1612 of 2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 947 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 947 of 2023 with Cr. Rev. No. 1254 of 2023

12. Put up these cases on 01.10.2024.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) KNR