Dismissed

Archana Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Apr 2023Cr.M.P./3265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 506, 323, 420, and 34 of the IPC. The Court held that allegations regarding threats, cheating, and assault in the context of an illicit relationship were not absurd or inherently improbable, and thus did not justify quashing under Bhajan Lal guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal miscellaneous petitions were dismissed as without merit, and the interim order passed in these petitions was vacated.

Archana Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶3

With

¶4

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3265 of 2022

¶6

Archana Sinha, Aged about 48 years, W/o –Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, R/o –Flat No. 104, Divyanjali Apartment, Behind Tagore Hill, Morabadi, P.O. –Morabadi, P.S. –Bariatu, District –Ranchi -834008;

¶7

Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Aged about 52 years, S/o –Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, R/o –Flat No. 104, Divyanjali Apartment, Behind Tagore Hill, Morabadi, P.O. –Morabadi, P.S. –Bariatu, District –Ranchi -834008;

¶8

.... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Nitin Kumar Sinha, Aged about 45 years, S/o –Late Umesh Kumar Sinha, R/o –Arunodaya Apartment, Flat No. 602, Near R.P.S. Engineering College, R.P.S. Gate, P.O. & P.S. –Rupaspur, District – Patna -801503 (BIHAR)

¶12

…. Opp. Parties

¶13

With

¶14

Rani Sinha, Aged about 36 years, W/o –Sri Nitin Kumar Sinha, R/o – Aparna House, House No. 38, Near Kapildev Maidan, Kadru, P.O. & P.S. –Argora, District –Ranchi -834002 .... Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand

¶17

Nitin Kumar Sinha, Aged about 45 years, S/o –Late Umesh Kumar Sinha, R/o –Arunodaya Apartment, Flat No. 602, Near R.P.S. Engineering College, R.P.S. Gate, P.O. & P.S. –Rupaspur, District – Patna -811503 (BIHAR)

¶18

…. Opp. Parties

¶19

P R E S E N T

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶21

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate

¶22

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶24

With

¶25

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶26

By the Court:-

¶27

Heard the parties.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3581 of 2022 has been filed by the wife of the opposite party no.2 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3265 of 2022 has been filed by the other two coaccused persons of the petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3581 of 2022 and in both the criminal miscellaneous petitions, prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 5608 of 2022 and order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 506/34, 323/34 & 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

The allegation against the petitioners of both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions as made out in the statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant is that the petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3581 of 2022 namely Rani Sinha did not lead conjugal life with the complainant –opposite party no.2 who is working with L.I.C of India and is posted at Patna and when the complainant-opposite party no.2 tried persuade the petitioner –Rani Sinha to lead conjugal life with him at Patna, the petitioner –Rani Sinha threatened the complainant to implicate the complainant in false criminal case, if her demands of extorting money from the complainant-opposite party no.2 is not

¶30

¶31

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶32

With

¶33

acceded to by the complainant-opposite party no.2. The petitioner –Rani Sinha is demanding more and more money from the complainant-opposite party no.2 by threatening, directly or indirectly through anti-social elements. The complainant-opposite party no.2 received threatening call over mobile phone commanding the complainant-opposite party no.2, not to visit the residence of the petitioner –Rani Sinha and their daughter who are residing in the paternal house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 at Ranchi and when the complainant asked the identity of the caller, the caller identified himself to be the petitioner no.2 of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3265 of 2022 who also claimed to be a close friend of Rani Sinha. The complainantopposite party no.2 upon visiting Ranchi to enquire about the petitioner no.2 of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3265 of 2022, found him staying in the residence of the petitioner –Rani Sinha and both were enjoying sweet moments and when the same was objected by the complainant-opposite party no.2, the petitioner Rani Sinha and Sanjeev Kumar Sinha misbehaved with the complainant by using abusive language and threatened to kill him if the complainant-opposite party no.2 comes again there and also threatened of bad consequences and to endanger the life of the complainant-opposite party no.2. The petitioner –Sanjeev Kumar Sinha again visited the house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 on 24.03.2021 at Patna and threatened him again, not to come to Ranchi and also asked the complainant to transfer the house property at Ranchi in the name of Rani Sinha. Sanjeev

¶34

¶35

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶36

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶37

With

¶38

Kumar Sinha added himself as the guardian of the daughter of the complainant-opposite party no.2. On 14.12.2020, the complainant-

¶39

opposite party no.2 again received a phone call whereby he was again threatened not to visit his own house at Ranchi where Rani Sinha is residing or else, he will face severe consequences and threatening of being killed was also given. It is specifically alleged that on 21.01.2021 at 06:00 P.M., the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked the complainantopposite party no.2 with helmet, bricks and stone and also sprayed chilli powder in the eyes of the complainant-opposite party no.2. The three accused persons in furtherance of common intention intend to cheat the complainant-opposite party no.2 by selling his house and to occupy the same illegally.

¶40

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence as alleged from the record of the case is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner –Rani Sinha lodged the F.I.R. against the complainant-opposite party no.2 vide Argora P.S. Case No. 53 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 which was registered under Section 313, 354, 509, 498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner –Rani Sinha has also filed Original Maintenance Suit No. 73 of 2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the present case is covered by Clause No. 5 & 7 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of

¶41

¶42

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶43

With

¶44

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶45

Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , reported in (1992) Supp

¶46

(1) SCC 335, para 102 of which reads as under:-

¶47

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶48

(1) Xxxxxx

¶49

(2) Xxxxxx

¶50

(3) Xxxxxx

¶51

(4) Xxxxxx

¶52

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶53

(6) Xxxxxx

¶54

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶55

Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising

¶56

out of Complaint Case No. 5608 of 2022 and order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi be quashed.

¶57

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the relationship between the petitioner –Rani Sinha and the complainant-opposite party no.2 is not in dispute. It is

¶58

6 Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶59

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶60

With

¶61

next submitted that the relationship between Rani Sinha and Sanjeev Kumar Sinha has also not been disputed by the petitioners anywhere. So when the wife of the complainantopposite party no.2 is undisputedly having illicit relationship with the co-accused Kumar Sinha and the person –Sanjeev complainant-opposite party no.2 being a dutiful husband is trying his level best to break such illicit relationship, it is but natural that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention are threatening the complainant-opposite party no.2 and on a particular occasion have caused hurt to the complainant-opposite party no.2 and also cheated upon the complainant-opposite party no.2, hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the allegation is absurd and inherently improbable, rather illicit relationship between the wife of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the co-accused and the intervention of the complainantopposite party no.2 to break the same makes the occurrence highly probable and it itself gives a strong suspicion about the commission of the offence which is sufficient to proceed with the case by the learned Magistrate by issuing summons. Hence, it is submitted that neither of the two grounds mentioned in Clause No. 5 & 7 of para -102 of the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra) is attracted in this case. It is lastly submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed.

¶62

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

¶63

¶64

Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶65

With

¶66

that it is a settled principle of law that the Court could not embark upon the inquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as that would be the function of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691.

¶67

It is also a settled principle of law that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 .

¶68

Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation of illicit relationship between the petitioner -Rani Sinha and Sanjeev Kumar Sinha has not be disputed anywhere in these criminal miscellaneous petitions nor the relationship of the petitioner – Rani Sinha with the complainant –opposite party no.2 is denied. So it is but natural that when the complainant-opposite party no.2 being the husband is legitimately trying to break the illicit relationship between Rani Sinha and Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, there has to be some retaliation of course, illegitimately from them and under such circumstances, the allegation of criminally intimidating the complainant-opposite party no.2 or on a particular occasion causing hurt to him in furtherance of common intention of the petitioners who are the accused persons of the complaint case cannot be said to be absurd or inherently improbable nor the same can be said to be alleged only with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused persons.

¶69

8 Cr.M.P. No.3265 of 2022

¶70

Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2022

¶71

With

¶72

Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 5608 of 2022 and order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi is to be quashed.

¶73

Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit are dismissed.

¶74

Consequently, the interim order passed in these criminal miscellaneous petitions stands vacated.

¶75

Registry is directed to supply a copy of the order to the court concerned forthwith.

¶76

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶77

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6^th April, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Archana Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited through Assistant Manager Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Makhi Jerai Alias Manki Jerai

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manik Lal Ghosh Vs Ramu Sarkar And Ors.

Manki Ram Vs Chitranjan Singh and Ors.

Dr Nitu Singh Alias Nitu Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiya Lal Taleja Vs the State of Jharkhand