Allowed

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

Jharkhand HC10 May 2023Cr.M.P./2335/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against specific petitioners (in-laws of the accused) in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment. The Court held that without specific allegations, trolling family members amounts to abuse of process, distinguishing the husband's separate liability.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings and order dated 23.6.2014 so far as they relate to petitioners 1, 3, 4, and 5 are quashed.

Manorma Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 2335 of 2014

¶5

----

¶6

1.Manorma Devi

¶7

2.Rupesh Pandey @ Umesh Pandey

¶8

3.Shilu Kumari

¶9

4.Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Pandey

¶10

5.Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Pandey .... Petitioners

¶11

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

--For the Petitioners :- Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ----

¶15

9 /10.05.2023 At the outset, Mr.Sahani, the learned counsel for the

¶16

petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 is husband of the complainant and he is not pressing this petition for the petitioner no.2 and he confines his prayer with regard to petitioner nos.1, 3,4 and 5 who happen to be mother in law, sister in law and brothers in law.

¶17

Heard Mr. A.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Achinto Sen, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2.

¶18

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 23.6.2014 in connection with Basia P.S.Case No.77 of 2013, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Gumla.

¶19

The complaint was filed alleging therein that marriage of the O.P.No.2 was solemnized with the petitioner no.2 on 24.4.2012 and on that occasion the parents of O.P.no.2 had given 2 lacs cash along with other jewelleries and many articles at the time of marriage. After the marriage O.P.No.2 living peacefully for some months, the accused nos. 1 to 5 started taunting the O.P.No.2 for bringing less dowry and they were asking for one motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of the same O.P.No.2 was tortured by them. On 1.8.2012 O.P.No.2 came to parent’s house and in the meantime no one came to take her back. On 8.6.2013 a

¶20

¶21

panchayati was held and thereafter the accused persons taken her back and after one month they again started taunting her and at one time accused no.1 (petitioner no.2) had cut wrist of the O.P.No.2. It is also stated that accused no.1 brought one another girl i.e. accused no.7 and started living with her as wife and husband and thereafter on information the parents of O.P.No.2 came on 24.9.13 and taken back the O.P.No.2 to the parent’s house. Hence, this case.

¶22

Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far petitioners are concerned there are only omnibus allegations against them and they are mother in law, sister in law and brother in laws. He submits that there may be allegations and those are against husband who is petitioner no.2 and that is why he has not pressed the petition so far as husband is concerned and the husband is ready to face the trial. He submits that in view of allegation who are general in nature, to continue the proceeding against these petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and they will unnecessarily go to face the trauma of trial.

¶23

Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the allegations are there and that is why the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He submits that at this stage this Court may not interfere with the matter sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶24

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that the petitioners are in-laws of the O.P.No.2. The case of the husband of O.P.No.2 has not been pressed in the present petition. Looking to the contents of the complaint it transpires that only omnibus and general allegations are there so far as the remaining petitioners are concerned. How all the family members are being roped in a matrimonial litigation has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2012) 10 SCC 741 . In the case of “ K. Subba Rao v. State of

¶25

¶26

Telangana , (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the relatives of the husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus allegations. The implication by way of general and omnibus allegations are made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if they left unattended will be misuse of process of law. In view of the fact of the case as on perusal of the contents of the complaint it reveals that general allegations have been leveled against the in-laws. The complainant has alleged that all accused persons have harassed her in matrimonial house mentally and threatened her. The present complaint fails to establish specific allegation against the in-laws of O.P.No.2 and allowing the prosecution in absence of clear allegation against the in-laws would simply result in abuse of process of law. Upon considering all the relevant circumstances and in absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, except the husband, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the turbulence of trial.

¶27

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 23.6.2014 in connection with Basia P.S.Case No.77 of 2013, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Gumla, so far as it relates to petitioner nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, is quashed.

¶28

This petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

It is made clear that so far as husband of the O.P.No.2 namely Rupesh Pandey is concerned, the Court has not interfered in the matter. The learned court will proceed against the husband of the O.P.No.2 in accordance with law.

¶30

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

¶31

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

SI/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorma Devi 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

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prakash Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajkumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mahendra Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sourendra Nath Roy Alias Hari Nath Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.