Partly allowed

Sweta Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./1752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the quashing of a cognizance order that recorded only Section 498A IPC. The Court held that evidence did not support Section 3 Dowry Act but indicated an offence under Section 4 against the father-in-law.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.07.2022 taking cognizance only for Section 498A IPC is quashed, and the matter is remitted for a fresh order regarding Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Sweta Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

1 Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1752 of 2023

¶3

Sweta Sinha, D/o Anil Kumar Sinha & W/o Ambar Raj, aged about 32 years, resident of Khirgaon Bunglow, Imli-Kothi Chowk, P.S. –Bara Bazar, District –Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Ambar Raj, S/o Anil Kumar Sinha, aged about 39 years, resident of in the house of Uma Shankar, Salimpur Ahara Gali No.1, P.O. –Kadam Kuan, P.S. –Gandhi Maidan, District –Patna, Bihar -800003

¶7

Anil Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Madan Mohan Prasad, aged about 58 years, resident of in the house of Uma Shankar, Salimpur Ahara Gali No.1, P.O. –Kadam Kuan, P.S. –Gandhi Maidan, District –Patna, Bihar - 800003

¶8

Bindiya Sinha @ Annu Sinha, W/o Anil Kumar Sinha, aged about 55 years, resident of in the house of Uma Shankar, Salimpur Ahara Gali No.1, P.O. –Kadam Kuan, P.S. –Gandhi Maidan, District –Patna, Bihar - 800003

¶9

Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rinku Bhagat, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed

¶16

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2022 in Complaint Case No. 502 of 2021 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code but has failed to take the cognizance for the

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶19

offence punishable under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶20

¶21

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party nos. 3 & 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner. The petitioner solemnized marriage with the opposite party no.2 on 26.04.2019 and at the time of marriage, the presents like Swift Dezire Car, cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, jewelries worth Rs.7,00,000/-, gold chain and gold finger rings were given. It is further alleged that there is a dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the father-in-law of the petitioner and the dowry demand is the reason for marital discord between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, considering the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima-facie case only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to take into consideration the fact that in para -3 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the presents were given at the time of marriage upon demand of the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-

¶23

¶24

Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶25

law of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh ought to have taken cognizance at least for the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand defends the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2022 in Complaint Case No. 502 of 2021 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and submits that in her statement under solemn affirmation, the petitioner has not uttered a word against her sister-in-law. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of demand of dowry or receiving dowry against the opposite party no.2. There is no. allegation against the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 at any point of time demanded any dowry or took any dowry. It is next submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is only against the father-inlaw of the petitioner as made in the statement under solemn affirmation. The petitioner has not uttered anything in her statement under solemn affirmation that apart from the father-inlaw of the petitioner being the opposite party no.3, any one else has made any demand of dowry. It is then submitted that the allegations against the opposite party no.2 are general and omnibus in nature in the complaint also and there is no specific allegation against the opposite party no.2 that the presents were made to the bridegroom at the time marriage upon the demand

¶27

¶28

Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶29

being made in that behalf. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has rightly taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that in her statement under solemn affirmation, the petitioner has not uttered even a word about the presents given at the time of marriage were given to the bridegroom upon the demand having been made in that behalf by any of the opposite parties and the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- after marriage is only against the opposite party no.3.

¶31

So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, keeping in view the nature of allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, this Court finds that in the facts of this case, the offence punishable under Section 323 is a minor offence of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no specific allegation against any of the opposite parties of having wrongfully restrained the petitioner in any manner. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any error in not taking the cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

¶33

Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶34

¶35

So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, a careful perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in her statement under solemn affirmation has not uttered a word to show that the presents given to the bridegroom being the opposite party no.2 at the time of marriage were on demand having been made in that behalf. In the absence of that, a bald and indirect allegation in the complaint cannot be a justifiable reason to be treated as a sufficient material itself to take cognizance of the offence more so when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had the occasion to see the demeanor of the complainant who was examined on solemn affirmation as well as the inquiry witnesses whose statement have been recorded during the inquiry. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court will interfere with the cognizance order dated 07.07.2022 is concerned, for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having not taken the cognizance of the offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶36

So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, in her statement under solemn affirmation, the complainant has categorically stated that her father-in-law demanded the dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and in a subsequent negotiation, he was rigid and insisted on fulfilling the said dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. So this is a case where it prima-facie appears that the the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out against the

¶37

¶38

Cr.M.P. No.1752 of 2023

¶39

opposite party no.3 –father-in-law of the petitioner, therefore the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and would have proceeded against the opposite party no.3 – father-in-law of the petitioner in respect of that offence but having not done so, the order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 502 of 2021 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code only is quashed and set aside.

¶40

The matter is remitted to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶41

This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶42

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶43

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21^st December, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Sweta Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Sinha 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

Ritesh Joshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naushad Hasan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samiullah Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanuja Singh Alias Smt Tanuja Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Ravindra Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bueau

Sweta Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand