Court: Jharkhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE R.R. Prasad
Krishna Kant Mehta Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr. On 16 January 2014
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Quashing of Cognizance — Cruelty — No direct allegation is there against petitioners either of demand of dowry or subjection to cruelty — It is not expected that these petitioners would be doing act which has been alleged against them — Prosecution of petitioners wholly unwarranted and abuse of process of law.
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard the parties.
2. This application, now confined with respect to these two petitioners namely, Krishna Kant Mehta and Baijanti Devi, had been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Ichak P.S. Case No. 191 of 2012 (G.R. No. 4166 of 2012), including the order dated 25.2.2013, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC has been taken against these two petitioners and the other accused persons.
3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.
4. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had married to one Sanjay Kumar Mehta on 8.7.2003 which got fixed on the mediation being made by these two petitioners who happened to be the uncle-in-law (fufa) and aunt-in-law (fua) of the husband of the complainant. After one year of the marriage, at the instance of these two petitioners, the husband, father-in-law as well as mother-in-law started asking the complainant to bring a motorcycle, colour TV as well as cash of Rs. 50,000 from her parents’ house. When the demand was not fulfilled, against the accused persons at the instance of these two petitioners started subjecting the complainant to torture physically as well as mentally.
5. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No. 204 of 2012. The said complaint was referred to the concerned police station under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for institution and investigation. Upon investigation, final form was submitted whereby all the accused persons were exonerated.
6. However, the Court by deferring with the finding of the police took cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons.
7. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.
8. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that these two petitioners, who happened to be the uncle-in-law (fufa) and aunt-in-law (fua) of the husband of the complainant, were residing at the other place than the place, where the complainant was residing along with husband and other family members, and in that situation it is not expected from them that they would be harassing the complainant particularly when these two petitioners were instrumental in getting the marriage fixed in between the complainant and the husband.
9. Further, it was submitted that no specific allegation either of demand of dowry or subjection to cruelty is there against the petitioners, rather the allegations what have been made against these petitioners are that the other accused persons at the instance of these two petitioners started putting forth demand and when the demand was not fulfilled, the complainant was being subjected to torture. Under the situation, the case needs to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, II (2010) DMC 387 (SC)=VI (2010) SLT 7=III (2010) CCR 338 (SC)=(2010) 7 SCC 667.
10. As against this, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits than it is not that nothing has been alleged against these two petitioners rather the allegations are there against these petitioners that at the instance of these petitioners, other accused persons were putting forth demand of dowry and were subjecting the complainant to torture on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and thereby the Court did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against these petitioners also.
11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that the allegations are there against these petitioners that at their instance, other accused persons were subjecting the complainant to torture on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. This allegation is clear indicative of the fact that no direct allegation is there against these petitioners either of demand of dowry or subjection to cruelty. Thus, the allegation does prima facie disclose of over implication of these petitioners who were residing at the other place than the place where the complainant and other family members were residing. In that situation also it is not expected that these petitioners would be doing the act which has been alleged against them. Under the situation, the prosecution of the petitioners would be wholly warranted.
12. In this respect, a decision rendered in a case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of U.P and Another, III (2012) DMC 482 (SC)=VIII (2012) SLT 152=IV (2012) DLT (CRL.) 626 (SC)=IV (2012) CCR 405 (SC)=2013 (1) JLJR 115 (SC), may be referred to wherein Their Lordships has observed as follows :
“However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teaching problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.”
13. Under the situation, the case certainly appears to be of over implication of the petitioners. In such situation, any prosecution of the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law.
14. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Ichak P.S. Case No. 191 of 2012 (G.R. No. 4166 of 2012), including the order dated 25.2.2013, taking cognizance under Section 498-A of the IPC, is hereby quashed, so far as these two petitioners namely, Krishna Kant Mehta and Baijanti Devi, are concerned. In the result, this application is allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment