High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner relatives in a dowry harassment case, relying on K. Subba Rao case to prevent liability based on general allegations, while proceeding against other accused.
Criminal proceedings against petitioners including cognizance order dated 27.07.2015 hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 488 of 2016
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.
In the complaint it has been alleged that the marriage of the informant was solemnized on 18.5.1994 as per Hindu rites with the Accused No. 1, Rati Nath Puran, who is a senor worker at Dhemomen Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It is further stated that after solemnization of the marriage the informant remained peacefully in her in-laws house at Dhemomen along with her husband gave birth to two children namely Rupesh Chandra and Shailesh Chandra, who are now aged about 15 years and 10 years respectively. It is further alleged that all of a sudden behaviour of the Accused No. 1/husband changed from the year 2007 and thereafter all the accused persons started torturing the complainant in a peculiar manner and started demanding Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry from the father of the complainant, who had retired from Bokaro
-2-
Steel Plant and when it was denied, the accused persons started torturing her and also assaulted her regularly.
It is further alleged that the Accused No. 1 has an illicit relationship with the Accused No. 4, Sukhmati Devi (Petitioner No. 2 herein) and the same was within the knowledge of other family members but none were opposing the same. It is further alleged that the character of the Accused No. 1 has become questionable and he was found in an illicit relationship with a maid servant resulting into her pregnancy but she did not raise any hue and cry on the request of her husband due to family prestige. The complainant protested the illegal demand and illegal activities of her husband upon which all the accused persons tortured her mentally and physically due to which she became ill, however, no medicine was provided to her as they wanted to kill her and therefore, she returned to her parents' house. After returning to her parents' house she made a complaint before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti and when it was come to the knowledge of the accused persons they came to her parents' house and took her with them to her matrimonial house with an assurance that she will not be tortured and she will be kept with full honour and dignity and also will maintain her and for which a declaration was filed on 31.10.2009. The aforesaid complaint made by the complainant was numbed as 13/2009 and therefore, the same was withdrawn on 20.3.2010.
It is further alleged that after withdrawal of the case, the activities of the in-laws changed and they started torturing her again. It is further alleged that on 11.3.2012 all the accused persons came to the house of the complainant situated at Sarjomdih and entered into her house and assaulted her and her family members and the Accused No. 4 has snatched the Mangalsutra of the complainant and this way they have violated the terms of compromise and therefore, she went to Tamar Police Station for registration of F.I.R. but the same was not registered, therefore, the present complaint was filed, which was subsequently forwarded to the concerned police station resulting into the present F.I.R.
-3-
submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the distant relative of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that the case is registered under Section 498-A and other Sections of the IPC and so far as the petitioners are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against them. He submits that for sending the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned court has called upon a report from the officer-in-charge of Tamar Police Station, who has submitted the report on 07.09.2012, contained in Annexure2/1, wherein it has been disclosed that no case is made out against these petitioners, in spite of that the FIR has been registered and learned court has taken the cognizance. He further submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned, unnecessarily the case has been registered.
-4-
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed against distant relatives based on general and omnibus allegations in a matrimonial dispute.
Whether forcing petitioners to face the trauma of trial would amount to undue harassment.
Whether cognizance orders against petitioner relatives can be quashed while maintaining proceedings against other accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Subba Rao V. The State of TelanganaFollowed¶19
(2018) 14 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Paresh Puran, Sukhmati Devi, Jeet Mohan Puran
State of Jharkhand, Usha Puran
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
