Kaberi Sen vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.

The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01. 04.2022 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.37 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.344 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant’s marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 31.01.2010 according to Hindu custom and rites. Out of the wedlock she is blessed with a female child on 30.01.2011, who is also suffering from diabetes. Since, after the marriage her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law started demanding additional dowry and used to harass and coerce her in various ways. They used to force her to bring cash and jewelleries. Her sister-in-law (Kaveri Sen) used to demand Jewelleries and cash etc. and brother-in-law (Ashok Sen) used to demand smart TV from her. They harassed and tortured her and her daughter physically and mentally. Her husband (petitioner) always used to abuse and assault her without any reason and threatened to kill. She along with her daughter was forced to return her paternal home in Bokaro. Her husband came to Bokaro on 20.10.2019 and abused her in presence of her parents and threatened to take her daughter. After getting information that her husband had performed second marriage with one Monika Rakshit, then on 01.11.2019 she went to her matrimonial house along with her father and said Monika Rakshit but her mother-in-law and father-in-law drove her out from the matrimonial house.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law of the informant. By way of referring to the contents of the FIR, she submits that there are general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and these petitioners are residing separately in Kolkata wherein FIR was registered at Bokaro. She submits that bald allegation is made against the petitioner No.2 of demand of TV and there is no specific date and how the demand has been made is not disclosed in the FIR. She further submits that there are five accused persons including the petitioners and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance and the trial is proceeded now. She submits that if a case is made out, the High Court is having the power to interfere at any stage of the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which is corresponding to Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. On this ground, she submits that so far these petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that allegations are there of demand of TV by the petitioner No.2 as such the case is made out. He submits that since the trial is already proceeded, this Court may not exercise his power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. On this ground, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR it transpires that there is direct allegation against the husband namely Parth Sarthi Rakshit of assault and using filthy language and demand of dowry and further allegation is made that the husband of the informant has further solemnized the second marriage. Thus, there is direct allegation against the husband and so far the petitioners are concerned bald allegation is made that too against the petitioner No.2 of demand of TV and the date of demand etc. is not disclosed in the FIR and further these petitioners are happened to be the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant.

Section 498A of the IPC was inserted in the statute with laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of the husband or his relatives. In course of the time large number of cases are continued to be filed under the garb of the said section even upon the distant relatives and they are being harassed that was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. versus State of UP and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472.

In many cases, even the bed ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husband, their sisters living abroad for decades have arrested in a case arising out of Section 498A of IPC that was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

How the matters arising out of a matrimonial dispute over trivial issues in the heat of the moment these cases are being lodged for the subject matter before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein paragraph Nos.32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 which was held as under:-

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 are also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 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 fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

The Supreme Court in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed that where in a matrimonial dispute, the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of matrimonial dispute wherein all family members have been roped into the matrimonial dispute.

In the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relative in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

These are some of the judgments arising out of Section 498A of IPC and the principle of quashing have been laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

Coming to the facts of the present case upon perusal of the contents of the FIR which has been discussed here-in-above, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against these petitioners, who happened to be the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant and if such a situation is there it simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence and the allegation against these petitioners are general and omnibus and the husband is not the petitioner in the present case as well as the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

This Court is in agreement with the argument of respondent No.2 with regard to the quashing principle and it is well settled that the High Court’s has to be very slow in quashing of the entire proceedings, if a case is made out there are line of judgments on the said principle such as State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 (Supp.) (1) SCC 335. In the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has further reiterated even frame the guidelines in the case of “M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” reported in 2021 (3) JBCJ 10(SC).

What has been discussed here-in-above, so far these petitioners are concerned to allow them to face the trauma of trial will amount to abuse of process of law.

It is further well settled that if a case of quashing is made out even the trial is proceeded, the Court can exercise his power. Reference may be made to the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the Court comes to the conclusion, so far these petitioners are concerned to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of process of law, as such the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01.04.2022 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.37 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.344 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro so far these petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed.

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance, so far the rest of the accused persons are concerned and the learned Court will proceed in accordance with law.