Prerna Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is stated to be a tenant in the matrimonial house of the informant and it is alleged that she has entangled the husband of the informant in her web of love. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the husband of the informant made an application for registration of their marriage which upon being protested by the complainant was rejected by the Marriage Officer and it is further alleged that the

¶14

2

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶16

petitioner along with the co-accused persons were conspiring to kill the informant.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner regarding any demand of dowry or treatment of cruelty perpetrated on the informant. It is then submitted that the allegation that the petitioner trapped the husband of the informant in her web of love do not amount to any offence punishable in law. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a bright and laborious student and she is having her entire career and future and if she will undergo this criminal proceeding, her career will be jeopardized. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , reported in 1992 AIR 604 . Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 registered involving the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence but the offence

¶19

3

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶21

punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. of the said Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶22

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner ever indulged in any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the informant to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the informant nor there is allegation against the petitioner of harassment of the informant where such harassment is with a view to coercing the informant or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

¶23

Hence, in the absence of any allegation of torturing the informant with cruelty and as the petitioner is neither the husband or the relative of the husband of the informant, hence this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

¶24

So far as the offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any acts, deeds or things which could have resulted in miscarriage of the informant without her consent. Thus, if the allegation as made in the F.I.R. is

¶25

4

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶27

considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

¶28

So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of which reads as under :-

¶29

“24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .

¶30

25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:

¶31

“… The prosecution must prove:

¶32

(i) That the accused threatened some person.

¶33

(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;

¶34

(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of

¶35

5

¶36

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶37

avoiding the execution of such

¶38

A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶39

That in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section

¶40

504 of the Indian Penal Code, the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

¶41

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of intentionally insulting the informant of such a degree that the same should provoke the informant to break public peace or commit other offence. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner as well.

¶42

So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is crystal clear that to make out the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must threaten some person and such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property of the victim or someone in whom the victim was interested and that such threatening was done with intent to cause alarm to the victim.

¶43

Now coming to the facts of the case, even if the allegations made in the FIR is considered to be true, still none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations as made in the

¶44

6

¶45

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶46

F.I.R. are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

¶47

So far as the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor regarding the offence of conspiracy is concerned, though the said offence has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., still it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Hashim v. State of T.N. , reported in

¶48

(2005) 1 SCC 237 , para -22 of which reads as under:-

¶49

“22. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of conspiracy. Section 120-B IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of “criminal conspiracy” given in Section 120-A reads as follows:

¶50

“120-A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,

¶51

(1) an illegal act, or

¶52

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

¶53

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.”

¶54

The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished in order to constitute an indictable offence. Encouragement and support which coconspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and

¶55

7

¶56

Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶57

abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. II, Section 23, p. 559.) For an offence punishable under Section 120-B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means.”

¶58

That in terms of the proviso to Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, some acts besides the agreement, if necessary to be done by one or more party to such agreement in pursuance of the conspiracy for the offence to be completed.

¶59

So far as conspiracy is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioner is that she took a meal with some named and some unnamed accused persons of the case and there was a discussion to kill the informant in conspiracy but there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner except for taking the meal, to show that she was in anyway involved in any conspiracy; of course even that offence has not been mentioned in the F.I.R..

¶60

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioner; even if the allegations made in the First Information Report is treated to be too in its entirety; hence the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Mahila

¶61

8 Cr.M.P. No.1835 of 2023

¶62

P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶63

Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chatra Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶64

It is made clear that during the investigation of the case, if any material comes against the petitioner, this order will not be a bar for arraying her as an accused in the case.

¶65

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶66

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶67

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8^th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Prerna Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prerna Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Mahto Alias Pradeep Kumar Mahto Alias Chhabi Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taiba Khatoon Alias Taiyba Khatoon Alias Taiva Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Shankar Prajapati Alias Sheo Shanker Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Sahal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Champa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand