Dismissed

Anu Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./1315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demands supported by statements justified issuance of process.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim relief granted to petitioners stands vacated.

Anu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Anu Sharma @ Ansoo Kumari, D/o Nand Kishore Kumar Singh, wife of Rahul Sharma, aged about 27 years;

¶5

Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar, husband of Anu Sharma, son of Sudershan Sharma, aged about 32 years;

¶6

Both residents of Village Upahara, near Gramin Bank Upahara, P.O. & P.S. Upahara, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, Pin- 824203.

¶7

Priyanka Kumari, D/o Nand Kishore Kumar Singh, wife of Rakesh Kumar, aged about 29 years, resident of Village- Keyal, P.O. & P.S. – Keyal, District- Arwal, Bihar, Pin- 804419

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Anushree Kumari, wife of Vikeshwarnath Athrwa, daughter of Chitranjan Kumar, aged about 28 years, resident of village- Anand Nagar, Bharam Toli, Bariatu, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District… Ranchi Opposite Parties

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate

¶13

------

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶17

This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3089 of 2021 whereby and

¶18

¶19

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶20

where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case against the petitioners and other co-accused persons having committed the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the India Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and ordered to issue summons to the petitioners and other co-accused persons.

¶21

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1- Anu Sharma @ Ansoo Kumari is the sister of the husband of the complainant being the accused No.4 of the complaint, petitioner No.2- Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar is the husband of the petitioner No.1 being the accused No.5 of the complaint and petitioner No.3 is the sister of the husband of the informant being the accused No.6 of the complaint. The allegation against the petitioners is that at the time of marriage of the complainant with her husband, though the father of the complainant gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash apart from transferring Rs.4,00,000/- in the account of the accused persons as demanded by all the accused persons meaning thereby the petitioners also besides giving articles worth Rs.7,00,000/, still one week after the marriage, the husband of the complainant started abusing the complainant which was justified by the mother-in-law and fatherin-law of the complainant. There is specific allegation against the petitioners that, as the complainant learnt that contrary to the information given before the marriage, her husband was not a permanent government servant and was only employed on contractual basis and when she asked about the reasons behind suppression of the said facts from her, the petitioners disheveled the complainant on the ground that she has brought less dowry and her father has not given any vehicle and even after that she is having the courage to raise questions about the employment of her husband. There is also specific

¶22

¶23

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶24

allegation against the petitioners that when the complainant returned to her matrimonial house on 27.03.2019 she found that her belongings have been stolen and upon enquiry she found that all her belongings were in the possession of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and when she asked them to give back her belongings, the petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 6 assaulted her and told her that since her father has not given proper gifts to them as such all the belongings of the complainant now belonged to the petitioners and when the complainant said that at least her clothes be returned to her, the petitioners did not agree for the same and told the complainant to bring more clothes from her father or else to stay naked in the house and after being informed by the complainant, her father gave her some money to buy some clothes. There is also allegation against the petitioners that in February, 2022 when the complainant became pregnant and asked her husband to take her to a doctor for treatment, the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 forced her to get the ultrasound done to find out the gender of the fetus and told that if the fetus is a female then she would have to get it aborted.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The learned Judicial Magistrate while issuing process was oblivious of the fact that the petitioners reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is next submitted that allegations against the petitioners are not specific and insufficient for the court to issue process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. and the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &

¶27

¶28

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶29

Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 wherein in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neelu Chopra & Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 wherein the facts of that case where the allegations against the petitioners was that they came to the house of the complainant’s parents and asked her parents to give the complainant more gold and other articles as dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant of that case and get her husband married second time. In the facts of that case by observing thus, in para-9 and of said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the order by which the Magistrate took cognizance invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C:-

¶31

“ 9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.

¶32

10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.”

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs.

¶35

State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein in the

¶36

¶37

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶38

facts of that case in the complaint, allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2 assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except the demand of luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon its judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported

¶39

in AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The relevant para-20 of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) reads as under:-

¶40

“ 20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

¶41

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

¶42

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

¶43

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

¶44

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has been filed to wreck vengeance only because the petitioners happen to be the relatives of the husband of the complainant. It is next submitted that for securing the ends of justice, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3089 of 2021, as prayed for, be quashed.

¶45

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for

¶46

¶47

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶48

quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3089 of 2021, as prayed for, by the petitioners. Drawing attention of this Court towards the statement made under solemn affirmation by the complainant, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that besides the aforesaid allegation, there is specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 of having evil eye upon the complainant and he used to molest her and on protest he used to tell that unless the demand of dowry is met, she will have to bear such acts. Further, she has corroborated the allegations made against the petitioners in her statement made on solemn affirmation also. It is next submitted that the enquiry witness No.1 namely Gaurav Raj has also corroborated the allegations against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that there being specific allegations against the petitioners of having committed offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and as the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) is there is no 2^nd FIR in this case , Neelu Chopra & Another vs. Bharti (supra) as the husband of the complainant is still alive and Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), it is not the contention of the petitioners that no part of the occurrence has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, which took cognizance , hence the ratio of those judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶49

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

¶50

¶51

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶52

here that it is a settled principle of law that at this stage of taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424

¶53

paragraph-8 of which reads as under:-

¶54

“8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.”

¶55

Now, coming to the facts of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is more allegation than a general and omnibus allegation as specific instances of treating the complainant with cruelty has been made out in the complaint, which have been supported by the complainant in her statement on solemn affirmation as well as the enquiry witness.

¶56

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the prosecution of the petitioners be stifled at this nascent stage by quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.3089 of 2021, as prayed for by the petitioners.

¶57

¶58

Cr. M.P. No.1315 of 2022

¶59