High Court quashed cognizance and processes issued in matrimonial dispute due to lack of materials in lower court order.
Order taking cognizance and processes of summons and arrest set aside; matter remitted to lower court.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 988 of 2017
…… Petitioners Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Savita Devi …… Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
--------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate For the State : None For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, Advocate
8/Dated: 17/03/2023
On repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the State.
Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No. 352 of 2014 including order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 498-A, 323/34 I.P.C. Orders dated 19.01.2012 and 20.05.2014 are also under challenge by which processes of 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. He submits that the petitioner no.1 who is mother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 has died. He submits that the petitioner no. 2 is elder brother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law and petitioner no. 4 is younger brother-in-law. He submits that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 inspite of that the learned court has taken cognizance.
2
The Court has gone through order dated 12.05.2011 whereby the learned court has taken cognizance under sections 498-A, 323/34 of the I.P.C. The case is arising out of complaint case and prima facie what are the materials brought before the court that compelled to take cognizance, is lacking in the cognizance order as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of“ Joseph Salvaraja V. State of Gujrat & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 59 and by this Court in Amresh Kumar Dhiraj V. State of Jharkhand and others [2020(1) JLJR 199] . Accordingly, order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law. The Court has perused the order dated 19.01.2012 whereby process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. That order is also not in accordance with law. There is no satisfaction of the court. Since order dated 19.01.2012 is not in accordance with law subsequent order dated 30.08.2013 whereby process of 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 498-A, 323/34 I.P.C and orders dated 19.01.2012 and 20.05.2014 by which processes of 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioners, are hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the learned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. Interim order is
vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing processes is in accordance with law.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the grounds of lack of materials and satisfaction in the cognizance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joseph Salvaraja V. State of Gujrat & Ors.Referred¶19
Joseph Salvaraja V. State of Gujrat & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 59 · Who else cites this
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj V. State of Jharkhand and othersReferred¶19
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj V. State of Jharkhand and others [2020(1) JLJR 199]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudama Devi Others
State of Jharkhand
Savita Devi
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court