Anil Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1685 of 2019

¶3

Mrs. Urmila Devi, aged about 57 years, Wife of Dukh Haran Shah, Resident of Laxminagar, Lal Gutwa, P.O. + P.S. – Nagri, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶4

Mr. Dukh Haran Shah, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Karma Ohdar, Resident of Laxminagar, Lal Gutwa, P.O. + P.S. – Nagri, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mrs. Nisha Devi, aged about 28 years, Wife of Anil Ohdar, Daughter of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah, Resident of Village – Salghajhari, Demkasai, P.O. + P.S. – Parsudih, District – East Singhbhum, State – Jharkhand.

¶8

….. Opp. Parties

¶9

WITH

¶10

Cr.M.P. No. 3583 of 2019

¶11

Anil Ohdar, aged about 36 years, Son of Dukh Haran Shah, Resident of Laxmi Nagar, Lal Gutwa, P.O. & P.S. – Nagri, Ranchi, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶12

….. Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand

¶15

Nisha Devi, aged about 28 years, Wife of Anil Ohdar, Daughter of Shri. Pradeep Kumar Shah, Resident of Village – Salghajhari, Demkasai, P.O. + P.S. – Parsudih, District – East Singhbhum, State – Jharkhand.

¶16

….. Opp. Parties ---------

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶18

-------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate. [ In both cases ].

¶19

¶20

Order No. 06/Dated: 13^th February, 2025

¶21

Cr.M.P. No. 1685 of 2019

¶22

1. In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

Compliant Case No. 843 of 2018, in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 313, 498(A), 306 and 511 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, who has instituted a case under Sections 406, 313, 498(A), 306 and 511 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶26

3. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint petition throughout does not disclose any overt act of the petitioners constituting the offences as alleged against the petitioners. The complainant in her solemn affirmation has also stated cruel treatment at the hands of her husband in various ways. The learned trial court has passed summoning order against the petitioners without dealing with the materials as to how the offences attributed in this case are applicable against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order, so far petitioners are concerned, is not justified under law and fit to be set aside.

¶27

4. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have defended the impugned order and submitted that there is specific allegation against the present petitioners that they have also treated with cruelty to the complainant just after solemnization of marriage and it is still continuing at the instance of present petitioners. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the rival parties. It is trite that the order of issuance of process is not a bare formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself.

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

6. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has initially discussed the contents of complaint petition, which disclose all the allegations against the husband of the complainant. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 and the complaint case has been lodged in the year 2018. Two children have also been begotten to the complainant. She has attributed allegation against her husband that he is liquor addict, used to physically assault her, attempted to kill her and also attempted to instigate her to commit suicide. When the informant was residing at Jamshedpur at her parental home, her husband came and brought back her along with her children on assurance that he will keep her with all dignity and honour, but all in vain. In the span of eight years of marriage, nothing has been whispered against the present petitioners, showing their ill-treatment or torture extended to the complainant, but at the time of instituting the complaint case, it is alleged that just after the marriage, her mother-in-law was abusing her due to deficiency of dowry and nothing has been alleged against the father-in-law. Other enquiry witnesses are close relative of the complainant and not eye-witnesses of any occurrence.

¶31

7. It appears that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the entirety of materials and the allegations against each accused persons surfaced in the complaint petition as well as during enquiry. There is no discussion at all about any specific roll of the present petitioners, showing their involvement in the alleged office and no satisfaction about prima facie materials against the petitioners has been recorded by Magistrate in the impugned order.

¶32

8. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned order of summoning dated 07.09.2018 passed against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 313, 498(A), 306 / 511 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

No. 843 of 2018 along with further proceedings in the case is hereby quashed as against the petitioners Mrs. Urmila Devi and Mr. Dukh Haran Shah only.

¶35

9. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed.

¶36

10. Pending I.A., if any is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

Cr.M.P. No. 3583 of 2019

¶38

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶39

12. Permission is accorded.

¶40

13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed