Allowed

Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC8 May 2023Cr.M.P./2371/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a husband and his in-laws for alleged cruelty. The court held that since the civil decree of divorce had attained finality due to the wife accepting one-time alimony without pursuing the appeal, continuing criminal liability was untenable as the civil finding effectively proved cruelty.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings including order of cognizance and Complaint Case No.794 of 2013 are quashed.

Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 1928 of 2014 ---- Satyakriti .... Petitioner

¶4

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2371 of 2014 ---- Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Another .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2382 of 2014 ---- Santanu Krishna .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mrs.Ruby Pandey, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia, Advocate Miss Niharika Nidhi, Advocate ----

¶8

12 /08.05.2023 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent State and Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia and Miss Niharika Nidhi, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

¶9

In these petitions common question of law as well as order taking cognizance are under challenge that is why with consent of the parties all these petitions have been heard together.

¶10

These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2013, in connection with Complaint Case No.794 of 2013, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

¶11

The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein

¶12

¶13

that the complainant’s marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 11.3.2012 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. Rs.23,90,000/- was deposited in the account of the father of the petitioner by the complainant’s father and Rs.64,000/- was paid to the accused persons for purchasing of suit. It is alleged that after marriage the mother in law and father in law took signature of complainant on blank cheque and entire amount was taken out by them. The petitioner after taking her to Vishakhapatnam spent less time with her. The petitioner was transferred to Delhi and there the complainant was humiliated and mocked on small issues. The complainant went Hazaribagh alone and narrated the whole story to her parents. The complainant again started living with petitioner where she was tortured by her in laws. It is alleged that one night the complainant was forcibly made drink wine by petitioner and was locked inside the room from where the complainant informed the police who came to her rescue. It is alleged that husband and inlaws always use to insist for divorce.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are, husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law in these petitions. He submits that husband of the complainant was posted as leutinant commandant at the time of marriage in Indian Navy and was posted at New Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Commander in the said organization. The petitioner has filed original suit for divorce being O.S.No.355 of 2014 against the O.P.No.2 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner namely Satyakriti and against the O.P.No.2.He submits that said order was challenged by O.P.No.2 in F.A. No.171 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2021 and said appeal was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 on the ground that she has received one time alimony of Rs.25 lacs. In view of that, the decree of divorce was attained finality. He submits that in this background, to

¶15

¶16

continue the proceeding further will amount to abuse of the process of law. He submits that now the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 has already solemnized another marriage after divorce.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that cruelty has been made against the O.P.No.2 and that is why the case has been filed and cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons and once the criminality is made out, both proceedings, criminal as well as civil can go simultaneously and in that view of the matter the proceeding may not be quashed.

¶18

The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that it appears that divorce has attained finality in view of the fact that the said F.A was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 as she has received one-time alimony of Rs.25 lacs.

¶19

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly these petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the O.P.No.2. The complaint case was filed alleging cruelty has been made by these petitioners and based on that the cognizance has been taken. The Court finds that in a divorce petition which was subject matter in original suit on the materials on record the Court finds that husband of the O.P.No.2 has been able to prove that after marriage the respondent has treated him with cruelty and that cannot reasonably expected to live with his wife and for a long period of six years the husband and wife were separate and learned Court found that there is no chance of re-union that is why the divorce was granted in favour of the Satyakriti, who happens to be husband of the O.P.No.2. Further the said decree of divorce was affirmed in view of not pressing the F.A. No.171 of 2019 on the ground that O.P.no.2 has received one-time alimony of Rs.25 lacs. Looking to the complaint petition it transpires that there are general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws. Further in a civil case, cruelty by

¶20

¶21

the O.P.No.2 has been proved in view of decree of divorce passed in the said original suit. It is well settled that in criminal case the judgment of civil court can be taken note of for provision of sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Kishan Singh (Deceased) through LRs v. Gurpal Singh and Others ,” (2010) 8 SCC 775 . Paragraph no.18 of the said judgment is quoted below:

¶22

“ 18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.”

¶23

In view of the above facts and reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2013, in connection with Complaint Case No.794 of 2013, pending

¶24

in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed.

¶25

Cr.M.P.No.1928 of 2014, Cr.M.P.No.2371 of 2014 and Cr.M.P.

¶26

No.2382 of 2014 are allowed and disposed of.

¶27

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

SI/,

Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shailesh Kumar Sinha 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayur Adesara Vs State of Jharkhand

Bina Devi Alias Vina Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khurshid Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Munna Khan And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chhaya Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gango Karmali and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.