Sarita Devi @ Sarita Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 494, 496, 420, 406, 120B and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the relatives of the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav got the marriage of the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav solemnized with the informant suppressing the material fact that co-accused-Sanjay Yadav was earlier married to Usha Kumari and at the time of purported marriage of Sanjay Yadav with the informant, the marriage of Sanjay Yadav and Usha Kumari was subsisting.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to the FIR, that admittedly the petitioners are residing at places different than that of the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav; as the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav resides in Panchwati Apartment at Ramgarh, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 are residing at Railway Colony, Barkakana, the petitioner no.4 resides at Ratu in the District of Ranchi, the petitioner no.5 resides at Khelari in the District of Ranchi and petitioner no.6 resides at Kathara in the District of Bokaro.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that therein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.11 relied upon its judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and observed that when the relative of the husband are not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such persons to pressurize the main accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 and submits that in paragraph no.25 thereof it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations, indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud, as it is well recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family, when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submits that in paragraph no.32, it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is a matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment, over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 wherein it has been observed that mere general allegation of harassment, without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators, would not suffice, to constitute the offences.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an unexplained delay of six months in institution of the case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety, still, none of the offences for which the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the main allegation is against the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav who is not the petitioner before this Court and only to pressurize the main accused, the petitioners have been implicated because they are the relative of the co-accused, even though they have no overt role played in the commission of the alleged offences. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 -Isha Yadav was a child in conflict with law, at the time of alleged offences. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant was knowing pretty well that the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav has divorced his ex-wife-Puja Kumari and Usha Kumari has also severed her matrimony with the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav and Usha Kumari has already married another person. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.6-Bhuneshwar Gope is not a family member of Sanjay Yadav and he has been roped as an accused, only because he was the mediator in the said marriage of the co-accused with the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made by the petitioners in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 reliying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 submits that in paragraph no.27 it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that in paragraph no. 12 (iv) of the said judgment, it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail; the proceeding should not be quashed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that since the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not involved in the FIR; so the ratio of the judgments relied upon the by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons have committed the offences as alleged in the FIR. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that for completion of conspiracy though in general no overt act need to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy; in terms of provision to Section 120A of Indian Penal Code “some act” besides the agreement is necessary to be done by one or more of the parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof, for the offence to be completed as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Hasim vs. State of T.N. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 237.

Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they demanded dowry of one four-wheeler vehicle from the informant, after she went to her in-laws’ house, after her marriage with the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav. There is also allegation that the petitioners, even though they knew about the subsistence of the earlier marriage of the co-accused- Sanjay Yadav with Usha Kumari, they suppressed the same and made the informant solemnize an illegal marriage with Sanjay Yadav and has kept the jewelry and cash of the informant.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 493, 494 and 496 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same is obviously attributed to the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav who is not the petitioner before this Court. There is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners that there was an agreement between the petitioners and the co-accused to commit the offence punishable under Sections 493, 494 and 496 of Indian Penal Code. In the absence of the same, by a general and omnibus allegation that the petitioners had the knowledge about the subsequent marriage of Sanjay Yadav with Usha Kumari at the time of Sanjay Yadav solemnizing marriage with the informant, in the considered opinion of this Court is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 493, 494 and 496 of Indian Penal Code even with the aid of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of India Penal Code is concerned, the same relates to cheating and thereby inducing any person to part with any property.

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of cheating or inducing any person so cheated to part with any property etc. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same requires inter alia two essential ingredients, one is entrustment of the property and the second is dishonest misappropriation of the same.

Now coming to the facts of the case, at best it can be said that there is entrustment of the property of the jewelry and cash which the victim took at the time of her purported marriage with the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav to the petitioners but there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the same by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners; even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, even with the aid of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides punishment for criminal intimidation. To constitute criminal intimidation , inter alia the essential ingredients are that the accused must threaten another with an injury to his person, reputation or property of himself or anyone in whom the person is interested with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause to that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do etc.

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of threatening to cause any injury to the person reputation or property of the informant or anyone else in whom the informant is interested and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, the same provides for punishment for giving or taking dowry.

Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation of taking of dowry is against the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav. There is no allegation of either taking or giving dowry against the petitioners. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not made out even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, the same provides for punishment for any person demanding directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or a bridegroom of any dowry.

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of directly or indirectly demanding any dowry from the parents or guardian of the informant and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not made out.

In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 be quashed and set aside QUA the petitioners only.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 is quashed and set aside QUA the petitioners only.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.