Partly allowed

Manoj Kumar Seth v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2022Cr.M.P./1476/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside an order of cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for lacking disclosure of prima facie materials against the petitioner and remitted the matter for a fresh order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Order taking cognizance dated 14.01.2016 set aside; matter remitted to concerned Court to pass fresh order.

Manoj Kumar Seth Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1476 of 2017

¶3

Manoj Kumar Seth ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Purnima Seth @ Pooja Seth ..... … Opposite Parties --------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None. ------

¶6

08/ 05.04.2022 Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By order dated 10.09.2018, notices were issued to the O.P. No. 2 and pursuant to that notice, the O.P. No. 2 has appeared through vakalatnama , but on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and, accordingly, the matter has been heard on merit.

¶7

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 336 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 4153 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶8

The prosecution case in short is based on the written report of one Purnima Kumari @ Pooja Seth dated 09.07.2015 stating inter alia that she has been married to the petitioner Manoj Kumar Seth on 29.10.2012 before the Marriage Officer, Ranchi and thereafter as per Arya Samaj Customs at Kolkata on 09.12.2012.

¶9

It has been stated that at the time of negotiations of marriage, both the parties had agreed to spend the expenses of marriage equally, however, after engagement, the father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the informant started demanding 5 lacs rupees as dowry whereupon, the husband of the informant pacified the things, however, her in-laws absented from the marriage ceremony. It has further been stated that on 10.12.2012, when the informant had gone to her matrimonial house, she was subjected to torture whereupon her husband took her to Bangalore and thereupon she had been staying there. It has further been sated that the informant’s in-laws family used to torture her for demand of dowry and the informant

¶10

-2-

¶11

had belief that her husband is with her, however, after sometime, her husband had also started torturing her. It has further been stated that on 25.01.2015, the husband of the informant had assaulted and thrown her out of her house, whereupon the informant came to Ranchi and started living with her family and on 11.02.2015, the husband of the informant came to Ranchi and demanded Rs. 20 lacs and a Honda City car as dowry. It has further been stated that on 14.04.2015, the husband of the informant, her father-in-law and mother-in-law came to Ranchi and demanded Rs. 25 lacs and a Honda City Car or otherwise, they would divorce her. On demand of such huge amount as dowry, the father of the informant expressed his inability to pay the same whereupon the father-in-law of the informant caught hold of the collar of the father of the informant and abused him and when the brother of the informant came to rescue of his father, the informant’s husband and brother-in-law assaulted him.

¶12

It has further been stated that the informant’s family are peace loving person and they have tried to pacify the things, to no avail and hence, there has been delay in lodging of the FIR.

¶13

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only omnibus allegations are made against all the accused persons including the mother-in-law, father-in-law and this petitioner, who happens to be the husband of O.P. No. 2. She submits that there was no occasion for demand of any dowry, as the marriage was performed with the choice of the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. She further submits that the parents of both the parties were informed later on about their marriage. She also submits that due to certain withdrawal of Rs. 8.5 lacs from the credit card of the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2, there was some altercation between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. She submits that the petitioner filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolkata on 13.03.2015, which was numbered as Title Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2015. She submits that on 13.03.2015 notice was issued to the informant and the next date was fixed on 05.05.2015 for appearance of the informant. She further submits that after receiving the notice, the informant has lodged the present case, which is for wrecking vengeance of the matrimonial suit, filed by the petitioner. She also submits that ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the

¶14

-3-

¶15

petitioner on 02.11.2021.

¶16

Mr. V.K. Vashistha, leaned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that this is not a case of wrecking vengeance of the matrimonial suit, filed by the petitioner, rather in the present case there are allegations against the petitioner and his family members. He submits that no case of interference is made out under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

In view of the above facts, the Court has gone through the materials available on record. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner only and the learned Court has also taken cognizance against the petitioner. By order dated 13.03.2015, it is an admitted fact that the notices were issued in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 2015 and the date was fixed of appearance of O.P. No. 2 on 05.05.2018 and this FIR was lodged on 09.07.2015. As such it appears that due to wrecking vengeance of the matrimonial suit, the present FIR has been lodged by the informant. Now the divorce has also been taken place by a decree of divorce dated 02.11.2021, which has been brought on record, by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶18

On perusal of the cognizance order dated 14.01.2016, it transpires that cognizance against the other accused persons have not been taken and only against the petitioner, cognizance has been taken. What are the materials available against the petitioner has not been disclosed in the said cognizance order. For passing the order of taking cognizance, there is no requirement of passing the detailed order, however, prima facie what are the materials against the petitioner must be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case is hand.

¶19

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 336 of 2015 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶20

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

Amitesh/-

Manoj Kumar Seth v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Seth v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurav Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Raman Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bandhu Tirkey Vs Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

Krishna Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Suresh Prasad Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand