Soma Yadav and Other vs The State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Informant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. The order dated 9-10-2010 passed in Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 (G.R. No. 125 of 2010) by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 379, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was initially challenged on the ground that since the final form has been submitted by the Police against these petitioners for the offences which included offence triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate does not have power to take cognizance of the offence triable by the Court of Sessions, but now the petitioners have given up this point. Instead of that, the order taking cognizance dated 9-10-2010 is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition to this effect has also been filed on behalf of the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party No. 2 also admits that the parties got their matrimonial dispute resolved.

It does appear that an FIR was lodged as Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against these petitioners as well as the other accused person, the husband of the informant, alleging therein, that after her marriage, all the accused person started subjecting her to torture on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

It has been further alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the accused persons even tried to kill her by sprinkling Kerosene oil and one occasion, the mother-in-law even tried to kill her by strangulating her neck.

The matter was investigated upon, but the Police did not find any culpability on the part of these petitioners though the complicity of the husband was found and thereby, the charge-sheet was submitted only against the husband of the informant, but the Court took cognizance of the offences not only against the husband, but also against these petitioners by differing from the finding recorded in the charge-sheet.

Thus, it is evident that the Police did not find the case to be true either u/s 307, IPC or other offences against the petitioners. Moreover, from the perusal of the First Information Report, one cannot form opinion that the case is made out u/s 307, IPC. Going further in the matter, it be recorded that the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and have entered into a compromise and thereby, a joint compromise petition has been filed. In that event, it would not be desirable to allow these petitioners to face rigour of the trial, in view of the decision, rendered in a case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and also in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another,

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 (G.R. No. 125 of 2010) including the order taking cognizance dated 9-10-2010 is hereby, set aside, so far the above-named four petitioners are concerned. In the result, this petition stands allowed.