Shubha Jubita Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 582 of 2019

¶2

Shubha Jubita Toppo, aged about 47 years, wife of Mathias Vijay Toppo, Resident of Quarter No. 39, Pathalkudwa, Deputy Lane, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District –Ranchi, At present resident at C/O Shri George Frank Kujur, Resident of Dangratoli, Middle Lane, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi.

¶3

John Anuranjan Kujur, aged about 54 years, Son of George Frank Kujur, Resident at Dangratoli, Middle Lane, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District -Ranchi.

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mathias Vijay Toppo, Son of Late Benedict Toppo, Resident of Quarter No. 39, Pathalkudwa, Deputy Lane, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District -Ranchi.

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P.

¶12

By the Court:-

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2, no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated

¶16

1

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶18

20.07.2018 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima-facie case in respect of the petitioner no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and against the petitioner no.2 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the complainant and the petitioner no.2 is the brother of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1 married the complainant in the year 2002. There were several instances of the petitioner no.1 ill-treating her mother-in-law including assaulting her and threatening the complainant to ruin him and there is also allegation of the petitioner no.2 in aiding and abetting the petitioner no.1 in all her such acts. The complaint was filed on 22.07.2014 and on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found prima facie case for the said offences. It is pertinent to mention here that during the recording of the solemn affirmation of the complainant in the court, the learned Magistrate observed that, the complainant has noted down the gist of the statement to be made on his solemn affirmation in his palm, which fact was detected and mentioned on solemn affirmation of the complainant, by the learned Magistrate. Upon being caught

¶20

2

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶22

doing so, the complainant expressed his regret for doing so and apologized.

¶23

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

¶25

of Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ,

¶26

reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , para -24 and 25 of which reads as under:-

¶27

“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] .

¶28

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:

¶29

“… The prosecution must prove:

¶30

(i) That the accused threatened some person.

¶31

(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;

¶32

(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 avoiding the execution of such threat.”(Emphasis supplied)

¶33

3

¶34

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶35

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

¶36

As well as the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

¶37

the case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶38

Another , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 , para -13 of which reads as

¶39

under:-

¶40

“13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 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 person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.”

¶41

That it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therein that unless the insult alleged is of such a degree that should provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out. It is next submitted that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the wife and the petitioner no.2 being the brother of the petitioner no.1 used to threaten the complainant of ruining him but there is no allegation that they made any intentional insult to the complainant. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners even if the allegations made against the petitioners

¶42

4

¶43

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶44

are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶45

So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation that the petitioners threatened to ruin the complainant; was made over a period of 12 years of marital relationship between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant; therefore, it may be considered as normal wear and tear of marriage but cannot be stated to be sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner no.1 of assaulting the mother of the complainant is general and omnibus in nature and admittedly, this case was instituted after the petitioner no.1 reported the matter of the misdeeds of the complainant to various persons and also instituted Complaint Case No. 998 of 2014 on 21.04.2014 and this false case has been foisted for wreaking vengeance. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of this Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 will amount to abuse of process of law. It is next submitted that the false implication of the petitioners is because of the illicit relationship, the opposite party no.2 is having with Veena Rani Thakur with whom the complainant has solemnized second marriage on 31.10.2013 and the photographs have been annexed with this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.2 is a computer professional and has been deputed abroad for more than seven years. It is next submitted

¶46

5

¶47

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶48

that the date and time of the alleged offences has not been mentioned anywhere. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by this petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶49

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offences alleged over a period of time, therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has rightly found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶50

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the complainant and the petitioner no.2 is the brother of the petitioner no.1. There is no time and place of any particular occurrence mentioned anywhere. The complainant in his solemn affirmation was caught by the learned Magistrate, who was recording his statement on solemn affirmation; having written the gist of the statement to be made by him under solemn affirmation in his palm. Undisputedly, the petitioner no.1 has first instituted Complaint Case No. 998 of 2014 on 21.04.2014 before institution of

¶51

6

¶52

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶53

this Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 on 22.07.2014. In the absence of any specific allegation of any intentional insult of such a degree that should provoke the complainant to break public peace, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners and the mere allegation that the petitioner no.1 being the wife of the complainant and the petitioner no.2 being the brother of the petitioner no.1 threatening to ruin the complainant over a period of 12 years cannot; in the facts of the case, amount to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and in the absence of any time and place of assault of the mother of the complainant by the petitioner no.1, the offence punishable under Section 323 being basically of general and omnibus in nature is not made out either. In the absence of use of any dangerous weapon or means, the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. In the absence of any allegation of house trespass against the petitioner no.2, the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out.

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences for which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and also considering the facts of the case as already discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that this Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 has been instituted for wreaking vengeance and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶55

7

¶56

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

¶57

Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima-facie case in respect of the petitioner no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and against the petitioner no.2 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶58

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2100 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 whereby and where under the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima-facie case in respect of the petitioner no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and against the petitioner no.2 for the offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the said petitioners only.

¶59

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶60

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶61

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5^th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶62

8

¶63

Cr.M.P. No.582 of 2019

Shubha Jubita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

Shubha Jubita Toppo 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

Anisha Kumari Alias Muni Swansi Vs the State of Jharkhand

K Sreekant And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ramesh Lal Srivastava And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ritesh Kumar Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhagwan Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Osin Kumar Keot Vs the State of Jharkhand