IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI.
Cr.M.P. No. 1155 of 2010
1.Ajit Kumar Rai
2. Laxmi Prasad Rai
3. Chanchala Devi
4.Mamta Devi
5.Anju Kumari
6.Dhrup Singh @ Dhrup Deo Singh .......................... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.Rekha Devi ................................................... Opp. Parties.
Coram :- Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K.Sinha
For the Petitioners :- M/s.Ramesh Kumar Singh
Kunal Kishore
Rakesh Kumar Advocates.
For the State :- Mr. Md. Hatim A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Kalyan Banerjee Advocate.
3/25.3.2011
The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashment of their entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
3.10.2008 by which Sri. A.K. Dubey, the Judicial Magistrate,Ist Class,
Dhanbad after enquiry, found a prima facie case under sections 498A and
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.1 Ajit
Kumar Rai and under section 498A IPC against the remaining petitioners
in C.P. Case No. 1477 of 2007, accordingly, summons were directed to be
issued against all of them who were later on admitted to anticipatory bail.
2. The prosecution story in short, as per the complaint
lodged by the O.P. No.2 Rekha Devi in the court of CJM, Dhanbad on
11.9.2007 was that she was married to the petitioner No.1 Ajit Kumar
Rai in the year 2002 in the premises of Deoghar Temple and after
marriage she went to her matrimonial home at Maniadhi P.S. Tundi
within the district of Dhanbad . She narrated in the complaint that on the
eve of marriage, Rs one lakh in cash, gold, furniture and utensils were
given to them. She remained peacefully at her matrimonial home for one
year but thereafter all the accused persons started perpetrating torture
alleging that she could not be able to bear any child in the meantime. She
further alleged that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and
husband used to administer two tablets in the morning and evening as a
result of which her health deteriorated day by day. She was then taken
away by her brother to parental home for her treatment and in the
meantime, taking the benefit of her absence, the husband-petitioner No.1
solemnized second marriage with another girl on the instigation of other
accused persons to which a panchayati was held and according to the
resolution, she was allowed to stay at her matrimonial home but again
her misery started and accused persons tried to create such a situation and
to put such impression that she would be killed it continued to stay there.
She was kept confined in a room without food and inhuman behaviour
was extended to her and finally she was driven out by the accused persons
by assaulting her. She any how reached her paternal home and narrated the
occurrence to her brother. She then went to the Tundi police Station
where she was advised to institute complaint case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that taking of cognizance of the offence is barred by
jurisdiction. The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the
Deoghar court but her complaint case was filed before the CJM Dhanbad.
Admittedly, petitioner No.1 Ajit Kumar Rai is the husband, whereas the
petitioners No.2,3,4 and 5 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, second
wife and sister of the husband of the complainant respectively. It would
be relevant to mention from perusal of the complaint petition that the
entire allegation was levelled either of perpetrating torture or
solemnizing second marriage against the husband but all the members of
his family, who were unconcerned with the affairs of the complainant
and her husband, have been maliciously impleaded. It would be evident
from the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation by
the CJM wherein she narrated that when she visited her parental home to
attend the marriage of her brother, her husband solemnized second
marriage with another girl Mamta Devi and thereafter she was driven out
from her matrimonial home by her husband and she had no where alleged
that she was assaulted by any other member/ in-laws of her matrimonial
home.
4. Mr.Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that the complainant was driven out
from her matrimonial home after her husband solemnized second marriage
with another girl without seeking decree of divorce and that such second
marriage could be possible only with the consent of the other members of
his family and therefore they cannot be exonerated from their criminal
liability who abetted which led to the complainant to suffer miserable and
deserted life. The entire occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of
the Dhanbad court except the marriage of the complainant with the
petitioner No.1 Ajil Kumar Rai which was solemnized at Deoghar
Temple.
5. Heard Mr. Hatim the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the State.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, composite reading of the complaint petition as well as the statement
of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation, I find that the
husband-petitioner No.1 was the principal accused who perpetrated
torture mentally and physically to her and that he solemnized second
marriage with another girl in the life time of the complainant. I further find
that though some overtact alleged to have been attributed against the
father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant who
were the petitioners No. 2,3 and 5 herein but such allegation could not be
substantiated in the statement of the complainant on her solemn
affirmation and therefore, I find that the facts alleging against all the
petitioners in the complaint case could not be substantiated in her
statement recorded on solemn affirmation. No overt act has been attributed
against the in-laws except the husband and false implication of the in-
laws, in the circumstances has been deprecated by various decisions .
7. In the result I find prima facie case against the
petitioner No.1 Ajit Kumar Rai to proceed against him for the offence
under sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code but for the reasons
discussed above I find that it is a fit case for quashment of the criminal
proceeding of the other petitioners viz Laxmi Prasad Rai,Chanchala Devi,
Mamta Devi,Anju Kumari and Dhrup Singh @ Dhrup Deo Singh in
C.P.Case No. 1477 of 2007 pending in the court of Sri.A.K.Dubey,
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Dhanbad. Accordingly, they are exonerated
from their criminal liability. This petition is allowed in part in the manner
indicated above. The trial court is directed to proceed against the husband-
petitioner No.1 Ajit Kumar Rai in accordance with law.
(D.K.Sinha,J)
SD