Jharkhand High Court
Hasan Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1500 of 2016
---------
Hasan SK, son of Serdi SK, resident of Ranipur, P.O. and P.S.- Hiranpur,
Dist-Pakur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjeeda Bibi wife of Hasan SK, D/o Kurwan Ansari, Resident-
Hathkathi, P.O. and P.S.-Hiranpur, Dist. Pakur
.... .... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
-----------
nd
09/Dated: 22 January, 2025
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by JM, 1st Class, Pakur
in PCR Case No.45 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the prima
facie the commission of the offence under section 498A of IPC was
found against the petitioner and cognizance of offence has been
taken and directed for issuance of summon to the petitioner. The
petitioner further prays for quashing of entire criminal proceeding
against him arising out of PCR No.45 of 2014 pending in the court
of JM, 1st, Class, Pakur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is thoroughly innocent and has committed no offence at
all. The complainant is habitual to lodge false case against the
petitioner and on earlier occasion, she has also lodged a case
against the petitioner in which the present petitioner was
acquitted by the judgment dated 27.09.2013 passed in Sessions
Case No.109 of 2008 under section 341, 323, 307, 498 and 315 r/w
34 of IPC. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 also filed a
maintenance case, which was compromised but the complainant is
not desire to live with the petitioner and she has been living
separately for more than 21 years of marriage. Admittedly, the
complaint petition does not disclose any demand of additional
dowry by the petitioner or by any other family members and the
allegations also do not fall within explanation of cruelty as
described in section 498A of IPC. Therefore, all the proceedings
including the summoning order against the petitioner is liable to
be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the judgments
of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083] and Digambar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836].
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the petitioner and submitted that for every cause of action, a
distinct offence is made out and there is no bar for institution of
criminal cases twice for the similar offences. Here in the present
complaint, there is totally different cause of action accrued for the
complainant and as per sworn affirmation of the complainant,
there is direct allegation against the petitioner that in the
maintenance case lodged by the complainant, the petitioner
entered into compromise and the case was disposed of
accordingly. After compromise in the said maintenance case, on
15.01.2014 the complainant was brought to her matrimonial home
by the petitioner where she was badly abused at the hand of the
petitioner and his mother and also confined her in a room along
with her daughter over the night without providing food, drink,
bed and other necessities and thereafter, the petitioner went in the
room of his second wife. In the next day morning, the complainant
was again abused in filthy language and driven away from the
matrimonial home.
In the above factual backgrounds, it is submitted by
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State that physical assault itself is
not sufficient to attract the provision 498A of IPC rather the mental
trauma under which the complainant was put by her husband
along with her minor daughter shows that she was subjected to
cruelty and such conduct of the petitioner was likely to affect the
life and limb of the complainant and her daughter and also likely
to drive her to commit suicide. Therefore, the contentions of the
petitioner as well as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for
the petitioner does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the
case. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for any interference and this petition is fit to be
dismissed.
4. For better appreciation of this case, provision of section 498A of
IPC is attracted as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
5. From bare perusal of the complaint petition as well as the sworn
affirmation of the complainant, it transpires that the complainant
was forced to settle the dispute in a proceeding under section 125
Cr.PC and after settlement, she went to her matrimonial home on
request of her husband (petitioner) but she was confined in a room
along with her minor daughter without providing food, drink and
other necessities and in the next day morning, she was again
abused and humiliated by the present petitioner and his mother
and ultimately she was driven away from the matrimonial home.
Thereafter, the complaint case was instituted.
6. In the case of Abhishek (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in this case, the petitioners were mother-in-law
and brothers-in-laws. In the factual background of the case, they
were falsely dragged in this case, hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court
found that no prima facie case was made out against them and
proceedings against them were quashed. Another citation relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner at para 17 in the
case of Digambar (supra) wherein only provision of section 498A
of IPC has been stated. Although in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the proceeding was found to be misuse of process of law,
hence, order was quashed.
7. Other points of argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner appear to be probable defence, which may be raised at
the proper stage of the proceeding.
8. In the instant case, although, there is no allegation of any demand
of dowry or compelling the complainant to fulfill any unlawful
demand rather the allegation unimpeachable made against the
petitioner that he has compromised in the proceeding under
section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the complainant was brought to her
matrimonial home but instead of keeping her with full dignity and
honour, she was confined in a room with her small kid without
providing food, drink and other necessities and in the next day
morning, she was again abused and humiliated and driven away
from her matrimonial home, which is sufficient to attract the
provision of section 498A of IPC. Considering the above facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition,
which stands dismissed.
9. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
10. Let the copy of this order be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/-
