Allowed

Saraswati Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2023Cr.M.P./1256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a P.C.R. case filed against a petitioner and her daughter-in-law. Relying on a prior matrimonial judgment declaring the marriage null and void due to suppression of facts, the court found the criminal filing was malicious and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding including the order of taking cognizance dated 4.8.2010 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.73 of 2010 is quashed.

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 1256 of 2010

¶4

----

¶5

1.Saraswati Devi 2.Ramdeo Pathak- deleted vide order dated 14.5.2019

¶6

3.Sunil Kumar Pathak .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

--For the Petitioners :- Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. For the O.P.no.2 :- Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate ----

¶10

12 /15.06.2023 Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arpit Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

¶11

I.A. No.1741 of 2019 has been filed for deleting name of the petitioner no.2 namely Ramdeo Pathak who died during pendency of this petition and said I.A was allowed by order dated 14.5.2019 and the name of the petitioner no.2 has been deleted. Thus, the present case survives on behalf of the petitioner nos.1 and 3.

¶12

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 4.8.2010 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.73 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Koderma.

¶13

Mr. Aashish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is mother in law and the petitioner no.3 is alleged husband of the O.P.no.2. He submits that O.P.No.2 by way of suppressing the fact solemnized the marriage between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner no.3 on 11.3.2007. He submits that after the marriage it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner no.3 that marriage was solemnized by way of suppressing that the O.P.No.2 was suffering from endometriotic cyst or mass also called chocolate cyst. He submits that thereafter the petitioner no.3 has filed matrimonial case being Matrimonial Suit No.171 of 2009 for declaring the

¶14

¶15

marriage null and void. He submits that by judgment dated 26.9.2011 the marriage was declared null and void. He submits that matrimonial case was filed by the petitioner no.3 in 2009 whereas the present case was filed in the year 2010. He further submits that the judgment of the matrimonial court has not been challenged by the O.P.No.2 in higher court. He submits that the entire allegations in the complaint petition are false. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that at this stage, this Court may not interfere and these are the arguments which can be looked into during trial and at this stage this Court may not interfere with the matter.

¶17

Mr. Bishambhar Shartri, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that on the complaint case the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that it has been alleged that the marriage was solemnized on 11.3.2007. It is an admitted fact that the O.P.No.2 was suffering from endometriotic cyst or mass also called chocolate cyst disease that has been fortified in view of the prescription as well as the doctor who has deposed in the matrimonial suit before the learned court and she has stated that O.P.No.2 was suffering from endometriotic cyst or mass also called chocolate cyst disease. Admittedly in the matrimonial case filed in the year 2009 and the present P.C.R case filed in the year 2010. By the judgment dated 26.9.2011 the matrimonial suit was decided and the marriage has been declared null and void between the petitioner no.3 and the O.P.No.2. Filing the case in the year 2010 after filing the matrimonial suit by the petitioner no.3 in 2009 itself suggest

¶18

¶19

that the filing of the present case was after thought. It appears that the maliciously case has been instituted against the petitioners and further to allow the proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶20

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 4.8.2010 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.73 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Koderma is quashed.

¶21

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶22

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

SI/,

Saraswati Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Devi And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neema Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Neema Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh  Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.