Partly allowed

Pooja Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2024Cr.Rev./478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In-laws sought discharge in a 498A/34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act case arising from matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on omnibus allegations against relatives, the court allowed revision for the married sister-in-law who did not share a common household, but upheld rejection of discharge for the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

What did the court decide?

Discharge granted to petitioner no.1 (married sister-in-law); impugned order set aside only to that extent; discharge rejection upheld for petitioners nos.2 and 3.

Pooja Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.478 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Pooja Devi @ Pooja Thakur

¶5

Subhita Devi

¶6

Onkar Nath Thakur .... .... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand 2. Chanda Thakur .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Special P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No.07 Dated : 12.01.2024

¶13

Petitioners are the in-laws and the revision application is preferred against the order rejecting the discharge petition for the offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per the case of the informant, Bokaro Mahila P.S. Case No.20/2020 was registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the written typed report submitted by the informant, Chanda Thakur on 01.10.2020.

¶15

As per the F.I.R., the informant was married to Amresh Thakur on 05.02.2014, on payment of dowry of Rupees Eight Lakh cash and other articles valued at Rupees Four Lakhs.

¶16

It is alleged that father-in-law and mother-in-law used to complain about insufficient dowry paid and renewed demand of Rupees Seven Lakh for furnishing house of her husband at Delhi. In May, 2014, husband of the complainant went to Delhi and it is alleged that in June, 2014, the petitioner no.3, who is father-in-law attempted to forcibly establish physical relationship with her. The in-laws persisted with the unlawful demand. During her pregnancy, she was diagnosed of blood test HBSAg+. All the in-laws variously abused and assaulted her. Her father was forced to meet unlawful demand.

¶17

The police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet based on which, cognizance was taken.

¶18

The order has been impugned on the ground that the petitioner no.1 is married sister-in-law, who was married much before the marriage of opposite party no.2 to her brother. Petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.3

¶19

¶20

is father-in-law.

¶21

The entire incidence took place at Delhi and no part of the offence was committed at Bokaro, therefore, the Court at Bokaro had no jurisdiction to enter into the enquiry or trial.

¶22

Earlier the informant herself had filed informatory petition no.856/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 12.11.2014 asserting that her brother and cousin were instigating her to file the criminal case against her in-laws.

¶23

As a matter of fact, the marital dispute between opposite party no.2 and her husband has already ended in a compromise regarding which a joint compromise petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro at the stage of bail. On the basis of compromise, her husband was enlarged on bail by the learned Court below.

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer before this Court on 12.07.2022 wherein she has stated that there was no material and there was no evidence against the family members of the informant. The main contention is that none of the witness have stated anything against the married sister-in-law (Petitioner no.1) and petitioner no.2 (mother-in-law).

¶25

As far as the informant is concerned, she has made only general and omnibus allegation against these two petitioners. Reliance is placed on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Versus The State Of Bihar& Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 .

¶26

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2 have defended the impugned order. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, a mini trial is not required to be held. There are materials to make out a prima facie case against all these petitioners. As far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is submitted that there is specific allegation against petitioner no.1 in the F.I.R. In September, 2019, she had gone to Delhi and had stayed with the complainant for three weeks and used to subject her to mental cruelty. She used to bring pressure upon her to divorce her husband.

¶27

With regard to petitioner no.2, there is specific allegation against her that she along with other in-laws used to make complain about the dowry and had made unlawful demand. At times, petitioner no.2 used to slap her.

¶28

Personal liberty is jealously safeguarded but the Constitution, which finds its echo in different provisions of the criminal procedure code. The

¶29

¶30

provision of discharge gives an opportunity of judicial scrutiny of the materials on the basis of which accused is proposed to be put on trial. Courts are not post offices and this stage is not an empty formality to permit anyone to be prosecuted without sufficient materials. In any case, the Courts cannot become blind to the social realities, where there is a tendency to implicate all the in-laws in cases arising out of marital dispute. Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn attention to this aspect from time to time. It shall be relevant to quote some of the observations.

¶31

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar , (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶32

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

¶33

“6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

¶34

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶35

Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶36

18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

¶37

¶38

22. In yet another case reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848 : AIR 2003 SC 1386] it was observed that: (SCC p. 682, para 14)

¶39

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to [punish the] husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.”

¶40

But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498-A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent the woman from settling earlier. Thus, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.

¶41

15. In the present case, petitioner no.1 is the married sister-in-law of the complainant and admittedly was not sharing the common household with her. Only one incidence has been cited in the complaint that she had stayed with her at Delhi for three weeks, when interfered with her marital relationship. Other allegations against her, are general and omnibus in nature. On these materials even if the allegations are assumed to be true, no offence will be made out.

¶42

Under the circumstance, the revision application preferred on behalf of Petitioner no.1 is allowed, the impugned order, to that extent is set aside.

¶43

There is no infirmity with respect to the rejection of discharge petition preferred by the petitioner nos.2 and 3.

¶44

Revision petition is accordingly allowed with respect to Petitioner no.1 and rejected with respect to Petitioners nos.2 &3.

¶45

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶46

Anit

Pooja Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shakambari Builders P Limited Represented through Its Director Shri Pawan Bajaj Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revene and Land Reforms

Pawan Kumar Kejriwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revenue and Land Reforms

Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revene and Land Reforms

Ashok Kumar Singh Alias Ashok Singh Alias a K Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Chand Mall Alias Nirmal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priya Alias Priya Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand