Partly allowed

Ram Kishor Thakur and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2023W.P.(Cr.)/200/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the quashing of criminal proceedings against Ram Kishor Thakur, an FIR against him alleged only that he promised to look into his daughter's affair with the complainant's husband. The Court quashed the proceedings against him as no substantive allegations were made out, leaving the matter for trial against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.05.2015 so far as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned.

Ram Kishor Thakur and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(Cr.) No. 200 of 2015

¶4

Ram Kishor Thakur @ Ramesh Thakur

¶5

Veena Rani Thakur .... …Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Subha Jupita (Kujur) Toppo

¶9

..... …Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate

¶13

05/ Dated:-12.06.2023

¶14

On repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the

¶15

respondent no.2. Identical was the situation on 18.04.2023 and on that date the matter was adjourned with a view to give one more opportunity to the respondent no. 2 and it was observed that if on the next date the respondent no. 2 does not appear, the matter shall be heard on merit and accordingly, this matter is being heard.

¶16

Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶17

and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned counsel for the State.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner confines her prayer only with regard to petitioner no. 1 who is father of the petitioner no. 2. Accordingly, this petition is confined to petitioner no. 1 namely, Ram Kishor Thakur @ Ramesh Thakur.

¶19

This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.05.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 998 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi.

¶20

The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the Complainant i.e. Opposite Party No.-2 was married with one Matious Vijay Toppo, on 27.12.2002 according to the Christian Rites and Customs Act.

¶21

¶22

It was further alleged that soon after the marriage said Matious Vijay Toppo was taken into custody by Vigilance Police and remained there for 60 days. During this period O.P. No.-2 dutifully served her husband, which was not liked by the family members.

¶23

It was further alleged that she was blessed with a son in the year 2004 and a daughter in the year 2005. It is alleged that since the birth of her daughter the husband of Complainant started to act in a bad manner and had an affair with many woman.

¶24

It was alleged that in the year 2006 the husband of O.P. No.-2 tried to record the obscene photographs of O.P.No.-2 and while making physical relation with her use to tape the conversation/pictures of that moment and shared with other persons. The Complainant used to erase it during her leisure period. The Complainant felt, trauma Psychological stress.

¶25

It was further alleged that her husband used to demand for unnatural sex and wear tight cloths. In the year 2010 the Complainant became pregnant which was forcefully terminated by her husband as he threatened her of divorce.

¶26

It was further alleged that in the year 2011 when he was posted at Gumla as L.R.D.C. then he had illicit relation with his staff namely Veena Thakur (Petitioner No.-2), which was informed by her to the father of the girl. In the year 2013 it is alleged that she was badly assaulted by her husband before her in-laws. on 09/10th April 2013 she saw in the mobile of her husband an M.M.S. in which her husband, which the staff girl was seen in compromising position. On 12th April 2013 O.P.No.-2 contacted her husband over phone as to whether her husband would be joining her on lunch and just thereafter she came to know that

¶27

¶28

her husband has met an accident near Bero. After getting first AID her husband was shifted to Jagarnath Hospital, Ranchi where she nursed her as a good housewife.

¶29

It was alleged that there also her husband continued to talk with his staff namely Veena Thakur and did not took care of the Complainant. Hence on 15.04.2013 when the Complainant tried to prevent her husband from such acts than her husband became furious and started to assault her due to which she left her matrimonial house with the Mobile which was used by her husband. She also showed the M.M.S. to her sister in law and went to her parent house and returned after a while. Her sisterin-law tried to pacify the matter but could not convince her and hence on 16.04.2013 she left her matrimonial house alongwith her children. She informed Women Commission and Mahila Thana about the occurrence, which was registered as Case No.168/2013 and 236/2013 respectively. In course of counseling it is alleged that her husband became furious. Subsequently two friends of her husband tried to convince her but she was not convinced and made compliant to the then Commissioner, Bandana Dadel and Department of Personnel, Government of Jharkhand. Further she came to know to the news paper that her husband has married with the named Veena Thakur and in the said marriage was solemnized at Pahari Mandir, Ranchi on 31.10.2013.

¶30

It was further alleged that her husband took all possible steps to get back the mobile by alluring her kids and hence this complaint is being filed

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, except para 14 of the complaint petition nothing else has been alleged against this petitioner no. 1. She further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the father of the

¶32

¶33

petitioner no. 2 and allegation in the entire complaint has been made with regard to affair with the husband of the complainant with the petitioner no.2. She submits that ingredients of sections under which cognizance has been taken, are not made out so far petitioner no. 1 is concerned. She submits that entire criminal proceeding, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, may be quashed.

¶34

On the other hand, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned counsel for the State submits that the case is arising out of complaint case and inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the respondent no. 2 she has chosen not to appear. She submits that the learned court has taken cognizance and the entire argument advanced by the learned court for the petitioner is subject matter of trial.

¶35

The Court has gone through the contents of complaint petition and order taking cognizance and finds that allegations are made that the husband of the complainant was having affairs with the petitioner no. 2 namely, Veena Rani Thakur and the petitioner no. 1 is father of Veena Rani Thakur. No allegations are made out against the petitioner no.1. The husband of the complainant was having affair with the petitioner no. 2 namely Veena Rani Thakur. The petitioner no. 1 is the father of Veena Rani Thakur. In paragraph No. 14 of the complaint petition only allegation are made out against the petitioner no. 1 that he has assured that he will look into the matter apart from that nothing has been disclosed in the complaint petition so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned and further ingredients of sections 323, 341, 313, 377, 494, 498(A), 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(A)/67(A) of the Information Technology Act are not made out against the petitioner no. 1.

¶36

In view of above facts and considering that there is no

¶37

¶38

allegation so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.05.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 998 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶39

It is made clear that the Court has not interfered with the complaint petition and cognizance order so far as other accused persons are concerned. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶40

The petitioner no. 2 is at liberty to take all the grounds at appropriate stage.

¶41

This petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands, disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶42

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶43

Satyarthi/-

Ram Kishor Thakur and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor Thakur and Anr. v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Director General of Police

Satish Kumar Ravi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rambrij Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Randhon Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandeshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajkumar Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.