Partly allowed¶¶25

Rajeev Ranjan Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2024W.P.(Cr.)/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court writ petition (W.P.(Cr) 264/2023, Rajesh Kumar, J., 21-03-2024) quashing/setting aside cognizance order dated 20.12.2022 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Giridih in Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022; cognizance under Sections 323 and 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; settlement between husband and wife, compromise petition, divorce petition, parties to live separately; petitioners are brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of complainant Pooja Kumari; cognizance set aside qua petitioners only.

What did the court decide?

The order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2022 in Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022 was set aside so far as the petitioners are concerned; the writ prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding was granted only in respect of the petitioners. ¶¶25

Rajeev Ranjan Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, including the cognizance order dated 20.12.2022, should be quashed as regards the petitioners. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Considering the nature of allegation and the settlement of dispute between the parties, the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022 is hereby set aside, so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

The operative grounds for the decision were the nature of the allegations and the settlement of the dispute between the parties, with a compromise petition filed in the court below and the parties having agreed to live separately with a divorce petition filed.

¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(Cr) No.264 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi — Rajesh Kumar, J., decided 21 March 2024): Four petitioners, stated in the judgment to be brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant, sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022, including the cognizance order dated 20.12.2022 taken under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, together with a stay of proceedings against them during pendency of the writ. Counsel submitted that the husband and wife had settled the matter outside court, a compromise petition had been filed in the court below, the parties agreed to live separately and a divorce petition was filed. Considering the nature of allegation and the settlement of dispute between the parties, the Court set aside the cognizance order dated 20.12.2022 so far as the petitioners are concerned. Judgment ¶¶2-6.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(Cr). No.264 of 2023

¶3

¶4

Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Sinha

¶5

Varsha Sinha

¶6

Kumud Ranjan Sinha

¶7

Pranita Sinha @ Pari Sinha @ Praneeta Sinha

¶8

…. …. Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Pooja Kumari …. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Addl. P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Adv.

¶16

¶17

09/Dated: 21^st March, 2024

¶18

1. Heard the parties.

¶19

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

¶20

(A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s) for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2022, by which, cognizance has been taken under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022.

¶21

(B) For stay of the proceedings as against the present petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022 during pendency of the present writ application.”

¶22

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that there was settlement between the husband and wife. Accordingly, compromise petition has been filed in the Court below. The proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the complaint petition.

¶23

4. It has been submitted that the matter has been settled outside the court and the parties have agreed to live separately and petition for divorce has been filed.

¶24

5. The petitioners are brother-in law and sisters-in-law of the complainant.

¶25

6. Considering the nature of allegation and the settlement of dispute between the parties, the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1797 of 2022 is hereby, set aside, so far as the petitioners are

¶26

concerned.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶28

Raja/Uploaded

Rajeev Ranjan Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Ranjan Sinha 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gandhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager Vikash Shankar Vs Kumar Abhishek and Ors.

Kiran Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Ram Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Somnath Pathak through Its Proprietor Somnath Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand