Quashed

Tirpurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 Mar 2024CR. REV./82/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed convictions under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bench held that a dispute over the wife's residence, due to the husband being in military service, does not constitute cruelty under the statutory definition lacking allegations of harassment for dowry or physical/mental harm.

What did the court decide?

The order of conviction and sentence was quashed, and the accused persons are acquitted of the charges and released.

Tirpurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma and Ors. Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No.1365 of 2018

¶3

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2010 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

¶4

Patna

¶5

======================================================

¶6

Krishna Murari Sharma, S/o Sri Onkar Sharma, Resident of VillageSungarish, P.S. Paraiya, District-Gaya.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Bihar

¶10

Soni Susmita, W/o Krishna Murari Sharma, D/o Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village- Shanti Tola, Bedhana, P.S. Barh, District- Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

with

¶14

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 82 of 2019

¶15

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2010 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶16

======================================================

¶17

Tirpurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma, S/o Onkar Sharma @ Omkar Sharma Resident of village- Sungarish, P.S. Paraiya, Dist- Gaya

¶18

Onkar Sharma @ Omkar Sharma, S/o Late Saryug Sharma @ Late Sarju Prasad Singh Resident of village- Sungarish, P.S. Paraiya, Dist- Gaya

¶19

Kanti Devi @ Kranti Devi, Onkar Sharma @ Omkar Sharma Resident of village- Sungarish, P.S. Paraiya, Dist- Gaya

¶20

Priyanka Sharma @ Pinki Sharma Tripurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma Resident of village- Sungarish, P.S. Paraiya, Dist- Gaya

¶21

... ... Petitioner/s

¶22

Versus

¶23

State of Bihar

¶24

Soni Susmita, W/o Krishna Murari Sharma, D/o Ram Naresh Singh,

¶25

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 2/12

¶26

Resident of village- Shanti Tola, Bedhana, P.S- Barh, Dist- Patna

¶27

... ... Respondent/s

¶28

======================================================

¶29

Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL REVI	SION No.	1365 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s	:	Mr.Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv Ms.Meena Singh, Adv Mr.Shaket Kumar Singh, Adv
For the State	:	Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the O.P. No. 2	:	Mr.Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv Mr. Kumar Lalit, Adv
(In CRIMINAL REVI	SION No.	82 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s	:	Mr.Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv Ms.Meena Singh, Adv Mr.Shaket Kumar Singh, Adv
For the State	:	Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 ===============	: ======	Mr.Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv Mr. Kumar Lalit, Adv =================================

¶30

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Date : 11-03-2024

¶32

Both the Criminal Revisions were heard together and this Court proposes to dispose of both the Revisions in a common judgement as the Revisional Applications were filed against a common judgement and order of conviction and sentence.

¶33

In Criminal Revision No. 1365 of 2018, the petitioner is the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 and in

¶34

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 3/12

¶35

Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2019, the petitioners are matrimonial relations of the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶36

All the petitioners faced trial under the charge of Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court on conclusion of trial recorded order of conviction and sentence against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused persons/petitioners were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 6 months. They were also directed to pay a fine and in default imprisonment for further period on both counts. It was directed by the Trial Court that both the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine amount shall run separately.

¶37

The petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IVth Court, Barh in the District of Patna which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2013. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, being the learned S.D.J.M, Barh in T.R. No. 297 of 2013. The said judgement and order passed by the Appellate Court is under

¶38

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 4/12

¶39

challenge in the instant Revision.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 1365 of 2018 and the Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized on 7^th of May, 2007. It is alleged by the complainant that, at the time of marriage, the petitioners forcibly took Rs. 5 Lakh as dowry from the father of the complainant. After marriage, the husband and wife resided together for some time happily and thereafter the husband and other matrimonial relations exposed their ugly face to extort illegal money from the complainant and on her refusal she was subjected to torture. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 had illicit relationship with one Priyanka Sharma, the wife of the elder brother of her husband. The Opposite Party No. 2 disclosed the matter to her father. Her father and her maternal uncle came to her matrimonial home to settle the dispute but the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs. However, on 21^st of May, 2009, the complainant went to the place of posting of her husband along with her father but she was forced to return owing to illicit relationship of her husband with her elder sisterin-law. On 27^th of October, 2009, the accused persons assaulted her, locked her inside a room and conspired to kill her.

¶41

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 5/12

¶42

Thereupon, the complaint under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed by the complainant on 2^nd of January, 2010.

¶43

During trial, prosecution examined five witnesses. They are the father of the complainant (P.W.1), the complainant herself (P.W.2), brother of the complainant (P.W.3), one Arjun Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant (P.W4) and brother-in-law of the complainant (P.W.5).

¶44

It is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners in both the cases that except very near relations, the Opposite Party No. 2 / complainant failed to produce any witness in support of her case. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners that there is no specific case against the accused persons. In the complaint, the complainant made a general and omnibus allegation that the accused persons used to torture her on illegal demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The complainant failed to say in her petition of complaint as well as in course of evidence that on which date and in what manner, the said amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was demanded from the complainant.

¶45

It is further submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners that after the marriage, the husband

¶46

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 6/12

¶47

of the petitioner, i.e., the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2018, filed a suit for judicial separation on 6^th of November, 2009. During the pendency of both the cases under Section 498A of the IPC and the suit for judicial separation, a compromise was arrived at between the husband and the wife and it was decided that both the cases were withdrawn by the respective parties and they would stay happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial home of the complainant. Husband has withdrawn his suit but the wife did not.

¶48

The learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners also refers to the evidence on record, wherefrom it is ascertained that the complainant was only willing to stay with her husband and not with other matrimonial relations. Indisputably, the husband of the complainant is in Military Service. His elder brother also is in Military Service as well as his father. Therefore, the husband, father-in-law and elder brother-in-law of the complainant stay at their places of services and in the matrimonial home only the mother-in-law, elder sister-in-law and the complainant used to reside. The complainant wanted to stay with her husband and in dissociation with other matrimonial relations. Practically, the complainant went to the place of service of her husband with her father on 27^th of May,

¶49

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 7/12

¶50

They were allotted accommodation in a guest house for 10 days because the petitioner is not entitled to get any quarters for living together with his wife at his place of service

¶51

In view of such fact, the complainant was sent back to her matrimonial home after 10 days of the incident.

¶52

The learned Advocate for the petitioners in this connection refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P & Anr. reported in 2013 1 PLJR (SC) 10.

¶53

In the above stated report, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when complaint lacks ingredients of offence alleged against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and there names were introduced in a casual manner and no allegation of their active involvement is made by the complainant, the proceeding against the relatives of the husband is liable to be quashed.

¶54

In the instant case, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the complainant failed to prove that the petitioners demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs after their marriage. The allegation of torture and physical assault was also not proved. The complainant was never medically treated after being assaulted allegedly by her matrimonial relations. The

¶55

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 8/12

¶56

complainant alleged that her husband had illicit relation with her elder sister-in-law. However, the said fact has not been established by any independent witnesses. All the witnesses are interested and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Trial Court. There is no statement on the part of the complainant that her brother and brother-in-law ever went to her matrimonial home to witness the victim/complainant being tortured by her matrimonial relations.

¶57

The learned Sr. Advocate the for petitioners also refers to another decision of this Court reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 545 , (Brijesh Das @ Brijesh Kumar Das & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr) . In this report also the High Court on its finding that there was no statement that other relatives assaulted the complainant and all allegation against the petitioners were vague and omnibus, held that the matrimonial relations of the complainant cannot be put to trial as the material against them were not sufficient.

¶58

Learned Advocate for the Opposite Party/Complainant, on the other hand, submits that after marriage, on the prayer of the complainant, the Military Authority allotted a marriage accommodation to her husband at her service place. However, the petitioner of Criminal Revision

¶59

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 9/12

¶60

No. 82 of 2018 purposefully did not take possession of the said quarter.

¶61

It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the parties that the suit for judicial separation filed by the petitioner/husband ended in compromise on 14^th of March, 2011, on the basis of an undertaking on oath that the complainant/wife would be kept in association with her husband but he floated the said undertaking. On the other hand, on 14^th of February, 2013, the mother-in-law of the complainant filed a Complaint Case No. 229 of 2013 at Gaya against the complainant and her family members, alleging commission of dacoity, physical assault, theft and arson. The order of cognizance and further orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the said case was quashed by this Court. The petitioner/husband again given undertaking on 9^th of June, 2014, that he would keep his wife with him in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2013. However, the said undertaking was also floated. Before this Court also the parties were directed to negotiate on the basis of one time settlement but the husband refused to accept such proposal when wife offered to live with the husband without any amount and till date the provisional bail has not been confirmed.

¶62

Up-till now, this Court has recorded the factual

¶63

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 10/12

¶64

dispute between the parties. However as a Court of Revision, this Court is not within the jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether there was any demand of dowry, whether both the Courts below came to the concurrent finding that there was a demand of dowry and the accused persons assaulted the complainant. All such factual aspects were duly considered by the 1^st Appellate Court and scope of the instant Revision is only limited to say as to whether the case made out by the complainant is sufficient enough to fulfill the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

¶65

It is needless to say that explanation to Section 498A defines “cruelty” in the following words :-

¶66

‘On plain reading of explanation (a), it is found that cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC applies to any willful conduct which is of such a nature that leads the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave bodily injury, harm etc., either physical or mental. In the second place, it is the harassment perpetrated by the husband and her matrimonial relations with a view to coerce her to meet an unlawful demand by her or by her family members.’

¶67

In the instant case, the complainant did not make out any allegation of any willful conduct which might lead

¶68

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 11/12

¶69

her to commit suicide. The complainant herself stated in her evidence that her husband, elder brother-in-law and her fatherin-law reside at different places of their service. They do not reside in their matrimonial home. Therefore, there was no occasion for them to harass the complainant on illegal demand of dowry.

¶70

From the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the dispute between the parties rests on a very small issue. The complainant wants to stay with her husband and husband does not want to take her to her place of service and insisted upon her to stay at her matrimonial home with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law because other accused persons stay away from the matrimonial home for their service.

¶71

The issue involved in the instant revision is as to whether the aforesaid dispute between the husband and wife amounts to cruelty. In my considered opinion and taking into account the definition of “cruelty”, this dispute does not come within the purview of “cruelty”.

¶72

Both the Trial Court as well as the 1^st Appellate Court failed to considered this aspect of the matter and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence.

¶73

This Court is of the view that the order of

¶74

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1365 of 2018 dt.11-03-2024 12/12

¶75

conviction and sentence was not properly passed and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶76

Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Barh in T.R. No. 297 of 2023 and affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barh in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2013, are quashed and set aside.

¶77

The accused persons/petitioners in both the Revisional Applications are acquitted of the charge, set at liberty and released from their bail bonds.

¶78

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶79

uttam/-

¶80

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	18.03.2024
Transmission Date	18.03.2024

Tirpurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirpurari Sharma @ Tripurari Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar

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

Hemant Ray @ Munna Ray Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Angoori Khatoon and Ors. Vs Md.Hasim

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Cum Secretary, Home Deptt. Govt. of Bihar

Saif Ahmad Vs the State of Bihar

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through Its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

Krishna Murari Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.