Allowed

Baldin Ram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 May 2023Cr.M.P./2319/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against in-laws (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-laws) where allegations were general and lacked specificity. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding misuse of dowry cases and abuse of process, the High Court quashed proceedings against these petitioners while the trial proceeded against the husban

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2014, so far as these petitioners are concerned, are quashed.

Baldin Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2319 of 2014

¶3

1.Baldin Ram

¶4

2.Durga Bharti Durgawati Davi

¶5

3.Annu Bharti

¶6

Sarita Anand @ Sarita Bharti

¶7

…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

2.Lily Kumari

¶11

…… Opp. Parties

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

---------

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate

¶15

12/Dated: 11/05/2023

¶16

Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶17

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2014 passed in connection with Boriyo (J) P.S. Case No. 325 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 711 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj.

¶18

Initially P.C.R. Case No. 478 of 2013 was filed which was converted into F.I.R. under the provision of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. wherein it was alleged that the complainant was married with the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely Sanjay Kumar Kashyap according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Nehru Place, Koyla Bhawan of M/s. B.C.C Ltd., Dhanbad in which Honda Amaze Car and Cash, Golden Chain and other ornaments amounting to rupees five lacs was given by her family.

¶19

It was further alleged that other family members started to make pressure upon her for more dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, she has been tortured mentally and physically and she was also stopped food.

¶20

¶21

It was further alleged that family members of the complainant also tried to pacify the matter but in vain.

¶22

It was also alleged that on 21.06.2013 the brother of the complainant lodged a complaint at the police station at Dhanbad upon which the police brought the accused person at police station, but the brother of the complainant could not allow to arrest them and they gave bond to take her Bidai within one month and with the help of the police she came to Sahibganj at residing at her naihar.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was split up and the husband of the O.P. No. 2 namely, Sanjay Kumar has been convicted and he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he has preferred appeal . He submits that the petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are sister-in-laws of the O.P. No.2 and they have been unnecessarily roped in the present case. He further submits that the entire allegation of torture is made out against the husband and the occurrence is said to be occurred in Dhanbad whereas the present case has been lodged at Sahibganj. He further submits that there is lack of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that in case of such nature entire family has been roped. He, on instruction, submits that trial is going on, witnesses are being examined, in these background if they are asked to face trial, will amount the abuse of process of law. He submits that the Court is having jurisdiction even if trial is proceeded if the case is found to be malicious, the court can exercise its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

On the other hand Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the trial has proceeded, witnesses are being examined. He further submits that the case is made out if O.P. has been thrown away from the matrimonial house complaint can be maintained at Sahibganj. He submits that at this stage, the Court may not interfere with.

¶25

Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits trial is going on.

¶26

¶27

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. as well as documents brought on record. Looking into F.I.R. it appears that there are only general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Allegations are there against the husband of the O.P. no.2 who has been convicted and he has been directed to undergo R.I. for two years by the learned trial court for which he has preferred appeal which is still pending. In this background if general and omnibus allegation is made out against the inlaws, the Court is required to consider whether at this stage when the trial has proceeded the Court can interfere or not. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband of his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court have noted in many judgments that it is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the relatives even distant relatives and in some of cases even after full fledged trial the conviction are not made therein and there is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. In this back ground in the case of “ Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 it has been observed that in a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrayed as accused and they have been arrested and in that view of the matter certain guidelines have been issued in the case of “ Arnesh Kumar (supra). How the cases of large number of such complaint are being filed which are not even bona fide and filed with oblique motive was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand” (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein paragraphs 32 to 36 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶28

¶29

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

¶30

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶31

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶32

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶33

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶34

In the case of “G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in

¶35

(2000)3 SCC 693” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a matrimonial dispute, the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation and this judgment was again considered in the case of “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; (2012) 10 SCC 741 .

¶36

In view of above decision, it is crystal clear that at numerous instances the Court expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of I.P.C. and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused.

¶37

¶38

Coming to the facts of the present case and on perusal of the contents of F.I.R. it revealed that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sister-in-laws of the O.P. No.2. Complainant has alleged that all the accused persons have harassed her. The allegations have not been made against the petitioners attributing any specific role in furtherance of general allegation against them and allegations are therefore general and omnibus.

¶39

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis and considering the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners it will be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations. Repeatedly, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. Further the Court finds that the Court can interfere at this stage as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Anand Kumar Mahata V. State of N.C.T. of Delhi” (2019) 11 SCC 706 wherein paragraph 16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶40

There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.

¶41

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.08.2014 passed in connection with Boriyo (J) P.S. Case No. 325 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 711 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj, so far as these petitioners are concerned, are quashed.

¶42

¶43

This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any,

¶44

stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶45

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶46

Satyarthi/

Baldin Ram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldin Ram and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manorma Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mahendra Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jafir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police

Chhatru Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand