IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 With Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 --- Dr. Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Mandal S/o Late Jamuni Bhushan Mandal, Resident of Collage Road, Rasikpur, P.O. & P.S. and District – Dumka (Petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014) 1. Poli Mandlain @ Poli Mandal, W/o Late Jamuni Bhushan Mandal 2. Amit Kumar S/o Late Jamuni Bhushan Mandal 3. Lily Banrajee D/o late Bishambhar Banrjee, all Resident of Collage Road, Rasikpur, P.O. & P.S. and District – Dumka (Petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Syamli Gorai D/o Mathura Chandar Goria, r/o Rangila P.O., P.S. Rameshawar, District - Dumka (Opposite Parties in both these cases) --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. D. C. Mishra, A.P.P. --- 07/15.02.2016 Since in both these matters common questions of law and facts are involved the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in these applications have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners in connection with P.C. R. Case No. 193 of 2013 Corresponding to T. R. No. 1944 of 2013 including the order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition filed by the opposite party no. 2 is to the effect that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused no. 1 on 10.05.2009 according to Hindu Rites and custom. It has been alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 had started torturing the complainant by demanding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and was pressurising her to ask her father to fulfill such demand. It has been alleged that the accused no. 4 used to provoke the other accused persons for making the -2- demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On account of non-fulfillment of the demand made by the accused persons the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house and all the golden and silver ornaments belonging to her were snatched from her possession. It has been alleged that although the complainant gave birth to a male child on 31.03.2010 but neither the accused persons visited her to see the baby nor she was allowed to stay her at matrimonial house. A First Information Report was instituted at Dumka (T) Police Station on 02.09.2010 which ended in a compromise and the complainant was taken back to her matrimonial house. However, she on account of ill treatment meted out to her started staying at her father's place whereupon she was served with a notice from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar as a case was instituted for dissolution of the marriage. Ultimately, the complainant filed a First Information Report in which the Investigating Officer has submitted final form and she filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint petition.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations P.C.R. Case No. 193 of 2013 was instituted in which upon enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 19.07.2014. The petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 are the mother- in-law, husband and Aunt-in-law whereas the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 is the brother-in-law of the complainant.
5. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 in both the cases.
6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that prior to institution of the complaint case a suit was instituted by the husband (petitioner no. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014) before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar for dissolution of marriage. It has been submitted that as a counter blast to the suit filed by the husband the complainant had instituted a First Information Report which is registered as Dumka (Nagar) P.S. -3- Case No. 19 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Submission has been advanced that after investigation police having found the case to be false has submitted final form and, thereafter, on protest petition being filed by the opposite party no. 2 the same was treated as a complaint petition and subsequent to the enquiry cognizance was taken. Learned counsel submits that the entire allegations made against the petitioners are false, concocted and malicious as would be evident from the fact that even the aunt-in-law (Mousi Sas) and the brother-in-law (Devar) have not been spared.
7. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC741and the case of Preeti Gupta And Another vs. State of Jharkhand And Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC667 It has, thus, been submitted that considering the allegations levelled against the petitioners the entire criminal proceedings as against them deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. At this, Mr. D. C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint petition of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the ill treatment which has been meted out to the complainant on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand. Learned counsel submits that merely because the suit for dissolution of marriage was instituted prior to the institution of the First Information Report the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceedings more so when specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. He, thus, prays that in view of the nature of allegations levelled in the complaint petition both the applications deserves to be dismissed.
9. It is to be seen from the complaint petition as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners or not. The complaint petition reveals that there is specific allegation against the -4- petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as well as torture inflicted upon the complainant. The petitioner no. 3 in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 being the aunt-in-law of the complainant has also been attributed with instigating the other accused persons of making such demand. It would thus seem that the allegations made against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 are specific in nature. So far as the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 is concerned, only a passing reference has been made about his involvement and that too by including him in the nomenclature “all the accused persons”. Thus, admittedly no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014.
10. The factual aspects which have been discussed above has to be considered further in the light of the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering casual or passing reference made in the First Information Report with respect to a particular accused has held as follows:-
“19. Insofar as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 CrPC wherein it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction insofar as the consideration of the case of the appellants is concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of process of court.
24. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other -5- grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in Ramesh v. State of T.N. 2 that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to prolong the controversy. The facts in that matter on this aspect were although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant’s husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.”
12. In the case of Preeti Gupta And Another vs. State of Jharkhand And Another (Supra) consideration was being made with respect to the recent trend which have developed leading to institution of a large number of cases related to matrimonial disputes. The prevalent situation has been dealt with thus:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions -6- and should treat every complaint under Section 498- A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into -7- consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”
13. What would thus fall from the above and juxtaposing the factual matrix with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that when there are passing or casual reference made in a complaint/First Information Report of an accused continuation of a criminal proceedings against such accused and making him face the rigours of trial would lead to an abuse of the process of law.
14. The present case is also one of the instance wherein attempt has been made by the complainant to include all her in-laws by widening the net irrespective of the fact that in an appropriate case the accused may not even have an iota of role in the matrimonial disputes.
15. As has been discussed in the earlier part of this order there are specific allegations against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 and considering the same their application is, hereby, rejected. However, so far as the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 is concerned, his implication without assigning any specific role highlights the oblique motive for which the petitioner cannot be made to face the rigours of trial. In such circumstances, therefore, the criminal proceedings in connection with P.C. R. Case No. 193 of 2013 including the order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is, hereby, quashed and set aside so far as the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 is concerned.
16. Accordingly as cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove, Cr.M.P. No. 2439 of 2014 is dismissed while Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2014 is allowed. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-