Rajan Prasad Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 866 of 2016

¶3

Rajan Prasad Ram …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sudha Devi …Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Advocate For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate

¶10

07/06.05.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State as well as for the opposite party no. 2.

¶11

The prayer is made of quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.01.2015 pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

¶12

Complaint case was filed alleging therein that the case of the complainant is that the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 09.07.2013. The place of Occurrence is the house of the complainant in which she has stated that she had married with the petitioner according to Hindu Rites and Customs about 19 years ago. On the time of marriage the father of the complainant had paid the dowry as per their capacity. She has further stated that she having two female children/ daughters aged about 16 years and 11 years. She has further alleged that her husband tortured for the additional dowry demand for that complaint case has already been filed in the year 2010 as Complaint Case No.661 of 2010 in which the accused persons including the petitioner has been acquitted by learned trial court on the 10.06.2014. Thereafter the complainant anyhow spent her life along with her two daughters in her parents' house. On 09.07.2014 the accused assaulted to the complainant by kicks and blow and again he has demanded dowry and he has stated that in earlier case he has acquitted. Anyhow, the complainant has succeeded to save her life and accordingly the instant complaint petition has been lodged.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 has earlier filed a Complaint Case No. 661 of 2010 which was tried and all

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 866 of 2016 Page 1 of 3

¶15

the accused persons including the petitioner have been acquitted by the learned court by the judgment dated 10.06.2014 contained in Annexure-2. He submits that thereafter the present case has been lodged by the wife on 10.06.2014. He submits that the petitioner has already faced trial for the same allegation and acquitted and just after one month the present complaint case has been falsely filed against the petitioner who happened to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2. He submits that the allegations of the earlier case as well the present case have similar. On this ground, he submits that this is abuse of process of law and in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State submits that on the complaint petition the learned counsel has taken cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the case is made out and rightly the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that after acquittal the petitioner has again demanded the dowry and that’s why the case is made out. He refers the paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the complaint.

¶17

It is an admitted position that the petitioner has earlier faced trial pursuant to the Complaint Case No. 661 of 2010 and he along with others have been acquitted by the judgment dated 10.06.2014 in T.R. No. 304 of 2004 by the learned trial court and after one month the present case has been lodged on 10.07.2014.

¶18

Looking to the judgment of the learned trial court of the earlier case it transpires that the allegations are of the year 2014 and demand of motor cycle is also alleged in the earlier case. In the present case further allegations have made of demand of motor cycle and the occurrence of 2014 is also stated in the present case which clearly suggests that maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner, who happened to be the husband and for the same allegations he has already faced the trial and acquitted by the learned trial court.

¶19