Srimati Umrawati Devi @ Umravati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

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

The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2015 in connection with Adityapur (R.I.T.) P.S. Case No.205 of 2013 G.R. No.813 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that complainant/informant is legally married wife of co-accused Bindhyachal Chaurasiya and marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 09.03.2008 at her paternal house at Adityapur and at the time of her marriage, sufficient cash, besides ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000/- costly household articles were given. It has been stated that after marriage, complainant went to the house of accused persons where she was subjected to cruelty by accused persons and due to her suffering, complainant’s father again paid Rs.60,000/- but accused persons were not satisfied. It has been alleged that complainant was taken to Ranikhet where her husband was posted. However, there also she was subjected to cruelty as a result, her father brought her to Adityapur on 19.08.2009 and that accused persons came on 28.05.2010 and created nuisance, demanding money. It has further been stated that complainant lodged one complaint case No.55/2010 which ended in compromise. It has been alleged that after the compromise, the accused persons never made any attempt to take complainant back and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-and told that informant’s husband will contact second marriage. It has been alleged that on 05.05.2013, informant’s husband came to Adityapur and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and on refusal by the complainant, informant’s husband and others manhandled the father of the complainant/informant. That the complaint case was sent to police for investigation and on the basis of these allegations present case has been instituted.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law of the opposite party No.2. He submits that the petitioner No.1, who is the father-in-law has left for his heavenly abode and his name has been deleted by order of this Court by order dated 03.08.2023. He submits that now the petitioner is Srimati Umrawati Devi @ Umravati Devi, Santosh Chowrasia @ Santosh Kumar Chowrasia @ Santosh Chourasia and Gopal Kumar @ Gopal Chowrasia @ Gopal Chourasiya who happens to be mother-in-law and brother-in-laws respectively of the opposite party No.2. He draws the attention of the Court to the complaint petition and submits that there was general and omnibus allegation against all the petitioners including the husband of demand of dowry and torture. He submits that this is the second FIR prior to that the complaint being Complaint Case No.55 of 2010 was filed by opposite party No.2 wherein the compromise was made and pursuant thereto the opposite party No.2 has resided for 18 months along with the husband and again the dispute arose and thereafter the present case has been lodged. He submits that the husband has moved a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.109 of 2015, earlier also the husband of opposite party No.2 moved petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Case No.96 of 2009 before the Family Court, Bhabhua as well as Matrimonial Case No.109 of 2015 at Family Court, Bhabhua respectively and both the cases before the Family Court was further compromised between the parties. He submits that malafidely the present case has been filed, so far these petitioners are concerned and if any case is made out that is against the husband. He submits that this is a case of malicious prosecution and this Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that charge sheet was submitted and thereafter learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance and therefore no illegality was made in the order taking cognizance as such this petition may kindly be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint petition and submits that the allegations are there of demand of dowry and particularly he has made stress on paragraph No.9 and submits that this is not a case to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in view of that all the grounds the petitioners can take before the learned Court in the trial. He submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

In view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that prior to that one complaint case was filed by the opposite party No.2 in which the compromise was taken place and the husband of the opposite party No.2 has filed two matrimonial cases which was also compromised and another complaint case alleging therein that the petitioner and husband were torturing the opposite party No.2.

Looking into the contents of the present complaint petition, it transpires that there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners, who happened to be mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the opposite party No.2. So far the husband is concerned, the allegations are there and the husband of the opposite party No.2 is not the petitioner in the present case, even if the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 with regard to para 9 of the complaint petition is accepted from the said para it is crystal clear that the only allegations are made that accused No.1, 2 and 3 used to tell the complainant and her father to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- otherwise live in father’s house for ever. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the father-in-law who has already left for his heavenly abode and accused No.3 is the mother-in-law who is one of the petitioners in the present case and the tenure of the said allegation is said to be general against the accused No.3 who happened to be mother-in-law of the opposite party No.2. Thus, on general and omnibus allegation, the entire family members have been dragged in the criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute. Further for making out a case under Section 498A explanation (a) & (b) of the said Act is required to be disclosed in the contents of the FIR. The explanation (a) & (b) of the said section is not made out so far these petitioners are concerned.

It has been noted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma versus State of U.P. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 that it is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women and these cases are being filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues and many of such complaints were not bona fide at the time of filing of the complaint and the implications and consequences are not visualized.

The misuse of Section 498A of the IPC was again the subject matter in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and it was observed that it was the simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested, the case arising out of Section 498A of IPC that was consequent.

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra versus State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 in paragraph 21 of the said judgment it was observed that it would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation.

Coming to the facts of the present case what has been discussed here-in-above, it is crystal clear so far these petitioners are concerned who happened to be mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the opposite party No.2, there are general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners and the husband is not the petitioner in the present case.

In view of the above to allow the proceeding, so far as these petitioners are concerned, to continue will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding dated 04.12.2015 in connection with Adityapur (R.I.T.) P.S. Case No.205 of 2013 G.R. No.813 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella are quashed.

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

It is made clear that so far husband is concerned, this Court has not interfered with the entire criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance and the learned Court will proceed in accordance with law.

Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.