Dismissed

Subekanand Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Oct 2024CRMP/760/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and final report alleging dowry harassment by the wife. Charges had been framed and the revision against the framing order dismissed, so the court held the relief could not be granted and dismissed the petition with liberty.

What the court decided

AI extract

Subekanand Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:42077-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 760 of 2023

¶6

1 - Subekanand Jha S/o Shyamnand Jha Aged About 58 Years R/o B-06, Second Floor, Sainik Nagar, Navada Station, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, Delhi City South West, Delhi.

¶7

2 - Pratibha Jha W/o Subekanand Jha Aged About 54 Years R/o B-06, Second Floor, Sainik Nagar, Navada Station, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, Delhi City South West, Delhi.

¶8

3 - Sharadnand Jha S/o Subekanand Jha Aged About 30 Years R/o B-06, Second Floor, Sainik Nagar, Navada Station, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, Delhi City South West, Delhi.

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Station House OfÏcer, Mahila Thana, Raipur

¶13

3 - Sangya Thakur W/o Sharadnand Jha Aged About 30 Years R/o H I G 310, Block No. 5, Third Floor, Himalay Heights, Devpuri, Mana Camp, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Mr. Ashish Thawait and Mr. Abhishek Tandon, Advocates. For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Panel Lawyer No. 1 and 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Devershi Thakur and Ms. Alisha Khan, Advocates.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

24/10/2024

¶21

The petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

¶22

“(a) To quash the impugned FIR No. 157/2022 and Final Report No. 132/22.

¶23

(b) To call for the entire records regarding the case from respondent authorities.

¶24

(c) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶25

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage between the petitioner No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 13.07.2022. A complaint has been made by the respondent No. 3 alleging that the petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are the in-laws and petitioner No. 2, who is the husband of the respondent No. 3 have physically and mentally harassed her demanding dowry and to transfer the flat which in their name which is in the name of the respondent No. 3. It has been further alleged that she was thrown out of the Hotel while she was staying with them. Counselling between the parties was held but the same failed. Various other allegations have also been levelled against the in-laws i.e. the petitioners No. 1 and 2 with regard to misappropriation of Stridhan.

¶26

Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail from the learned trial Court and after investigation, the charge sheet has also been filed. He submits that from perusal of the materials available on record, it would reveal that no case is made out against the petitioners.

¶27

¶28

Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the learned trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, has framed charges against the petitioners vide order dated 11.08.2023 against which the petitioners had preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 483/2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. The learned revisional Court, after hearing the parties, have dismissed the revision vide order dated 03.08.2024 and afÏrmed the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and as such, this petition has been rendered infructuous on account of subsequent developments. Mr. Thakur has supplied a copy of the order dated 03.08.2024, which is taken on record.

¶29

It is an admitted position by the learned counsel for the parties that after filing of charge sheet, charges have been framed and the order framing charge was challenged which also stood dismissed and as such, the relief sought for in this petition wherein the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR, cannot be granted.

¶30

Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law, if aggrieved by the order framing charge against the petitioners which has further been upheld by the revisional Court , before the appropriate forum.

¶31

Sd/Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

Amit

¶33

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2024.10.25 19:39:09 +0530

Subekanand Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Subekanand Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dubey Travels Throght Shri Bhavesh Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shobha Ram Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Pal Sandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Narayan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh