Sidheshwar Singh, Mahesh Singh vs State of Jharkhand, Rakesh Kumar Singh

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 22.11.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 802 of 2002, whereby the cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story which arises out of a complaint case is to the effect that the complainant had approached the petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of his sister''s marriage with the petitioner No. 2. At the request of the petitioner No. 2, the complainant had approached the petitioner No. 1 and accordingly the petitioners had consented for the marriage and in that event ring ceremony was held on 16.7.2002. The allegations have also been levelled that the complainant had started making arrangements for the marriage and had spent a considerable amount of money. On 19.9.2002, the complainant was informed by the petitioner No. 1 that the marriage could only be solemnized, if the demand of dowry of Rs. 4 Lakhs is met by the complainant. Subsequently, however, the marriage could not take place and it has been alleged by the complainant that he had incurred an amount of Rs. one Lakh for preparation of the marriage in booking of hotel, purchase of gift items, etc.

After the complaint was filed an enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pursuant to the same vide order dated 22.11.2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has been pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 420/34 of the I.P.C., while disbelieving the version of the complainant with respect to demand of dowry made by the accused persons.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.11.2003, the petitioners have preferred this application.

Mr. Deepak Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the major part of the allegations made in the complaint is with respect to the alleged demand of Rs. 4 Lakhs from the side of the petitioners and the same has rightly been disbelieved by the cognizance taking court, as there is no documentary evidence and all the witnesses were hearsay witness. So far as the allegation with respect to Section 420 I.P.C. is concerned, it has been submitted that the same is on account of the alleged expenses incurred by the complainant towards preparation for the marriage and the same can be attributed to the petitioner No. 1 who happens to be the father of the petitioner No. 2, as the entire negotiations with respect to the marriage was conducted by the petitioner No. 1 in his capacity as the father of the groom. It has thus been submitted that no case u/s 420 I.P.C. is made out and in such circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 22.11.2003 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has referred to the complaint and has submitted that the complainant had incurred a huge expense on account of the accused persons having agreed to solemnize the marriage of the petitioner No. 2 with his sister. It has also been submitted that after giving assurance and after conducting the ring ceremony, the marriage could not be solemnized on account of refusal on the part of the petitioner and thus the entire episode with respect to preparation of the marriage and other incidental expenses would directly be attributable to the petitioners and therefore an offence of cheating has been committed by the petitioners.

The allegation made in the complaint petition seems to be in two parts. The first part is the alleged demand of Rs. 4 Lakhs made by the accused persons, whereas the second part is with respect to the incurring of expenses on the assurance of the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner No. 2 shall be solemnized with the sister of the complainant. So far as the first part is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi as would appear from the order dated 22.11.2003. As regards the second part of the allegation, it appears from the complaint petition that on the basis of the assurance of the accused persons necessary arrangements were made for performing the marriage of the sister of the complainant with the petitioner No. 2 and subsequently the intended marriage broke down resulting in, the complainant suffering a huge loss. The assertions made in the complaint petition do suggest a prima facie case against the petitioners and in such circumstance, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned court below while taking cognizance vide order dated 22.11.2003.

In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.