Cr.M.P. No.688 of 2007 [An application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.] 1. Laldhar Sahu 2. Kalindar Sahu 3. Sudha Devi 4. Dr. Shyam Narayan Sahu 5. Smt. Bulangi Sahu 6. Basand Prasad Sahu ..... Petitioners -Versus- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Nandita Sahu …. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA ---- By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant O.P. No.2.
2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.199 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.466 of 2005, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in the said case.
3. The police case was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the opposite party No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.6. In the complaint petition, it is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the parents' house of the complainant at Lohardaga, and thereafter, she was brought to the matrimonial home situated in the District of Gumla. The petitioners No.1 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and the remaining petitioners are the brothers-in-law and the married sister-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and torture at her matrimonial home in the District of Gumla, and also at Madras and at Shiv Sagar in Assam, where the father-in-law was posted. It is alleged that the husband and the mother-in-law of the complainant brought her along with her child to the parents' home on 16.6.1999 and left there stating that she will be allowed to enter the matrimonial home only after the fulfillment of the demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 26.7.2005, father-in-law came to the parents' home of the complainant and threatening was given for the demand of dowry. With these allegations, the complaint case was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, -2- Lohardaga, which was registered as complaint Case No.101 of 2005. The complaint case was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Lohardaga P.S. Case No.199 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.466 of 2005 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case and on the basis of the charge-sheet and the materials in the case diary, the cognizance for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the petitioners by the impugned order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, in view of the fact that the petitioner No.6, the husband had filed a divorce case against the complainant in the Court of District Judge, Gumla, which was registered as Divorce Case No.17 of 2014. It has been submitted that the said divorce case was filed on 22.11.2014 and thereafter, the complaint case was filed in the month of August, 2005, with absolutely false and malicious allegations, as a counter blast to the said matrimonial suit. Learned counsel submitted that in the complaint petition, all the family members of the husband have been falsely implicated and the perusal of the complaint petition would show that there is no specific allegation at least against the brothers-in-law and the married sister-in-law and there is only omnibus allegation against them. Learned counsel also submitted that the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is bad in the eyes of law, also in view of the fact that no sanction was obtained in view of the Bihar Amendment in Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Bihar Act No.4 of 1976, which prohibits taking cognizance under this section, except with the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer specified in this behalf. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2004 Cri. L. J.
2989, wherein where in the similar circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC741 wherein the law has been laid down by the Apex Court that if the other family members are casually implicated in the case and contents did not disclose their active involvement, the cognizance against them shall not be justified. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below taking cognizance against the petitioners, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite Party No.2 have opposed the prayer submitting that in view of the allegations made in the -3- complaint petition, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the case was investigated by the police and on the basis of the charge-sheet and the materials in the case diary, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance and no case is made out for any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage.
7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition, there is specific allegation against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. So far as remaining petitioners are concerned, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have only been added as accused in the complaint petition casually, only being the family members of the husband of the complainant and there is no specific allegation against them in the entire complaint petition. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the case as against the brothers-in-law and the married sister-in-law, is fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra's Case (supra).
8. The complaint petition, however, clearly shows that there are specific allegations against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant opposite party No.2, to have subjected the complainant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. Simply because of the fact that, earlier the husband had filed the divorce suit against the complainant, the same cannot vitiate the criminal proceeding against them. In this connection, reliance may be had to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC369 wherein where the law has been laid down as follows:-
“16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations.”
9. In view of the law laid down of the Apex Court in Pratibha's Case (supra), as also in view of the specific allegations of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture against the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law, no case is made out for quashing the criminal case against them, simply on the ground that the husband had earlier filed a divorce suit against the complainant. -4- 10. However, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the Bihar Amendment in Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Bihar Act No.4 of 1976, the order taking cognizance, so far it relates to the taking of cognizance for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as a proviso has been added in Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by Virtue of Section 3 of the Bihar Act No.4 of 1976, which reads as follows:- "Provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf." 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Lohardaga P.S. Case No.199 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.466 of 2005, so far as, it relates to taking cognizance against the petitioners Kalindar Sahu, Dr. Shyam Narayan Sahu and Smt. Bulangi Sahu, is hereby, quashed. The said order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, is also quashed so far as it takes cognizance for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. It is made clear that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners Laldhar Sahu, Sudha Devi and Basand Prasad Sahu shall remain in force for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. This application is accordingly, allowed in part, with the clarifications as above. (H.C.MISHRA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 18th August, 2015 R.Kumar/N.A.F.R.