Allowed

Binit Kumar Shrivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC filed post-divorce. The court noted the absence of specific details regarding the assault date, time, place, and unlawful demand in the complaint. Finding no prima facie case, the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.

Binit Kumar Shrivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1095 of 2018

¶2

------ Binit Kumar Shrivastava .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Martina Hansda @ Jyoti .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prem Shankar Dayal, Advocate

¶5

------

¶6

Order No.08 Dated : 05.10.2023

¶7

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.3279 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Ranchi.

¶8

The short question that falls for consideration in the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is whether a complaint case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be filed after judgment and decree of divorce is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶9

The complainant was married to the petitioner on 22^nd April, 2003 and the complaint has been filed on 16.12.2016 alleging that she was subjected to cruelty in reference of twin allegations that have been levelled in the complaint petition. Firstly, the complainant had been kicked out of the house by this petitioner and the another co-accused and she were forced to sign some stamp papers. The second allegation is that on 13.12.2016 at about 6.00 p.m. when she went to her flat, she found the petitioner along with another lady who appeared to be newly married to the petitioner. 4 The statement of the complainant is recorded in solemn affirmation and three witnesses have been examined during enquiry.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that even if the allegations made are presumed to be true, no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code will be made out for the reason that there is no specification regarding the said unlawful demand. It has not been stated what was demanded in cash or kind and when such demand was made. Furthermore, it is stated that she had been kicked out but what was injury

¶11

sustained, the complaint petition is absolutely silent on it.

¶12

In the statement on solemn affirmation in para 1 where she had given her statement on record that she had an absolutely normal relationship with her husband from 2003-2014 and had no complaint from anyone and they have been living separately since then. Reliance is placed on Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. Versus State of U.P. & Others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946

¶13

As a matter of fact, it is contended that the decree of divorce took place by the Judgment dated 2^nd August, 2016 in Original Suit (M.T.S.) Case No.519 of 2015. Against the decree, an ex-parte judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2018 was preferred by the complainant which was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2018. After decree of divorce and exparte decree, the present complaint has been filed.

¶14

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of complainant/opposite party no.2 that there is no interdict from filing complaint even after divorce, even the allegation pertains. It is submitted that this is a case of mental cruelty. She was brutally assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home which has come in para 7 and 8 of the complaint petition. They also caused mental cruelty by not permitting her from entering into the flat purchased by the complainant. The witnesses, son and daughter of the complainant have also supported the case of the complainant during enquiry. Reliance is placed on State of Odisha Versus Pratima Mohanty 2022 1 JLJR (SC) 111.

¶15

After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and considering the materials on record, it is apparent that the date, time and place of assault have not been mentioned in the complaint petition. There is further no reference as to what was demanded and when such demand was really made. The instant case has been filed after the decree of divorce. Under the circumstance, the Court is of the view that prima facie case is not made out on the basis of materials on record.

¶16

The summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceeding is quashed.

¶17

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶18

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Anit

Binit Kumar Shrivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binit Kumar Shrivastava 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjay Mani Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Motilal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Vimla Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjan Kumar Bakshi Alias Ranjan Bakshi Vs State of Jharkhand