Randhir Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P No.4066 of 2023

¶3

Randhir Kumar Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Ram Naresh Singh.

¶4

Sonamati Devi @ Sona Devi @ Sony Devi, aged about 68 years, wife of Randhir Kumar Singh. Both are residents of Santosh Niwas, Vikash Nagar, Piska More, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Shradhanjali Nanda, wife of Amit Kumar and daughter of Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Nanda, presently residing at Ward No.4, Seraikella, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella, Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.

¶11

Order No.08/Dated- 11.02.2025

¶12

1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

¶13

learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶14

2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 22.11.2023, whereby and whereunder, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/C, Seraikella has taken cognizance against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the present petitioners with respect to Seraikella Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been made accused in this case in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 being mother-in-law and

¶16

Page | 1

¶17

father-in-law of the informant who have no concern with the marital life of the informant and her matrimonial dispute with her husband. Petitioner No.1 (Father-in-law) is a retired school teacher, earning pension and maintaining himself and his wife (Petitioner No.2). They have no concern with either the salary of the informant or their son and living separately at their own cost. Therefore, they have been falsely been roped in this case as a matter of pressure tactics. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. and nothing has been collected during investigation to show their complicity in the alleged offence. Rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners that they were demanding half of the salary of the informant. No amount has ever been sent by the informant to the petitioners either in cash or in their bank account. Therefore, cognizance taken against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Mahila PS. Case No. 02 of 2022 and further proceedings of this case are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and has submitted that in the F.I.R. there is direct allegation against the petitioners that on instigation by them, the informant was assaulted by her husband. The present petitioners are also demanding half of the salary of the informant and treating the informant with cruelty and also kept all her ornaments and deprived her from entering into her matrimonial house. The materials collected during investigation also

¶19

Page | 2

¶20

corroborate the prosecution story. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of taking cognizance and there are sufficient materials for further proceedings in the case against the petitioners. Therefore, present petition being devoid of merits is fit to be dismissed.

¶21

5. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned order and other materials available on record. From perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the marriage of the informant was solemnized in the year 2015 as per Hindu Rituals and after solemnization of marriage, informant joined her matrimonial home and also blessed with a son. It is also alleged that on occasion of ‘Chhathi’ of her son i.e. on 11.10.2017, petitioners started taunting for deficient articles given in the dowry. It further appears that informant is posted as Manager in Bank of India at Seraikella and her husband is also working in State Bank of India at Jamshedpur and petitioners are residing at Ranchi.

¶22

6. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that present petitioners were demanding half of the salary of the informant and on instigation of present petitioners, her husband was assaulting and torturing her. She has also stated that in the year 2020, at the time of COVID-19, she had gone to Adityapur and was residing with her husband where she was also assaulted. Thereafter, she shifted to Bishtupur. She has visited her mother-in-law and father-in-law in February, 2024 and requested them to resolve the issues with her husband, but no heed was paid by the petitioners. Her husband also threatened

¶23

Page | 3

¶24

to kill and has detained her Swift Desire Car and other valuable articles, golden and silver jewelries. Hence, she lodged this case.

¶25

7. From perusal of other materials including the submissions of the parties and the impugned order, it appears that since the solemnization of marriage in the year 2015 to February, 2021, all the allegations are centered round on the husband and there is simple allegation against the petitioners that they were demanding half of the salary of the informant. It is also apparent from records that nothing was ever paid by the informant to the petitioners and there is no material available on record showing any financial assistance was provided by the informant to the petitioners. There are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner and they have been roped in this case only on account of being the parents of the husband of the informant. Therefore, upon consideration of relevant circumstances and absence of any specific role attributed to the present petitioners, it would be unjust to force them to face the agony of trial. Such type of manifestly false proceedings must be discouraged.

¶26

8. In view of above, order taking cognizance as well as other further proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.

¶27

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶28

Amar/-

¶29

Page | 4

Randhir Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Yashwant Nath Sahdeo And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shikha Kumari Alias Shikha Shukla Vs the State of Jharkhand