Abid Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Abid Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 837 of 2021 finding a prima facie case under Section 149/341/323/354/379/427/506 IPC, should be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. a legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 8 SCC 781.

Ratio / Principle

The undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being members of an unlawful assembly whose common object embraced wrongful restraint of the complainant and his wife, causing hurt with lathi and danda, outraging the wife's modesty, theft of Rs. 50,000/- cash, jewelries and a gold chain, mischief by vandalizing the house, and criminal intimidation; the only contention of the petitioners is that the case was foisted for vengeance because petitioner no. 3 is the complainant's daughter-in-law.

Key takeaways

Enmity is always a double-edged weapon: as a rule of universal application it cannot be said that in all cases, where the accused of a case instituted a case against the victim in respect of a subsequent occurrence, that subsequent case is to be quashed on the ground that its accused is the victim of the earlier case; nor can it be said as a rule of universal application that such a case is malicious or instituted for wreaking vengeance.ratio¶9
In the facts of this case, as the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, the complainant's statement on solemn affirmation and the statements of the inquiry witnesses disclose commission of the offences punishable under Section 149/341/323/354/379/427/506 IPC, the Court is not inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of wreaking vengeance/malicious prosecution merely because petitioner no. 3 instituted a case earlier and is the complainant's daughter-in-law.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) — Cr.M.P. No. 953 of 2022, decided 26 June 2024. Six members of one Hazaribagh family petitioned under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 837 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, finding a prima facie case against them for offences punishable under Section 149/341/323/354/379/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code — an 18.08.2019 unlawful-assembly assault on the complainant, outrage of his wife's modesty, theft of her gold chain and of Rs. 50,000/- and jewelries, and mischief by vandalizing the house. The complainant's earlier Complaint Case No. 2124 of 2019 had been referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Gorhar P.S. Case No. 35 of 2019), which submitted a final form stating lack of evidence; the complainant's Protest-cum-Complaint Petition led to the summoning order. Counsel for the petitioners (relying on Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2021 dated 08.03.2021; Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023; and clause 7 of paragraph-102 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604) urged quashing as frivolous litigation and malicious prosecution instituted to wreak vengeance, because petitioner no. 3 — the complainant's daughter-in-law — had earlier filed Complaint Case No. 2057 of 2019 (Section 498A IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act) and Original Maintenance Case No. 435 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the complainant's son. Held: enmity is a double-edged weapon; no rule of universal application quashes a subsequent case merely because its accused had instituted an earlier case against the victim, nor is such a case necessarily malicious; the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, the complainant's solemn affirmation and the inquiry witnesses' statements disclose the offences; and a legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (relying on Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 8 SCC 781). The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed being devoid of any merit.