IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.560 of 2010
1. Bijay Anand Gupta.
2. Ananta Devi.
3. Sagar Gupta @ Bullu @ Aditya Gupta.
4. Aakash Deep @ Aakash Gupta. ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sangita Devi. ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioners: Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2: Mr. P.K.Chaudhary, Advocate.
-------------
06/ 11.07.2011
The petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of
the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the C.J.M., Incharge, Godda in
G.R.No.1002 of 2009 arising out of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.295 of 2009
corresponding to T.R.No.1469 of 2009 by which the cognizance of the offence
was taken under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under
Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for the quashment of the
entire F.I.R.
2. A written report was presented before Godda Police by the
complainant-Opposite Party No.2-Sangita Devi admitting that she had
escaped with her paramour Bullu @ Aditya Gupta in the month of October,
2008 and having been aggrieved by that act, her father Nand Kishore Sah
had instituted a police case against Bullu @ Aditya Gupta and the members
of his family. The informant further admitted that she was earlier married to
one Pankaj Mandal at village Sarwa and she was having a daughter from her
earlier marriage with Pankaj Mandal but on account of torture being
perpetrated by Pankaj Mandal he had socially severed her relationship with
him and began to live with her parents at Lohia Nagar Godda. During her stay
in the parental home, it was alleged that the accused Bullu @ Aditya Gupta
proposed to marry her on account of love that he developed with her and he
further allured that she would be accepted with her daughter to which she had
communicated his proposal to her parents indirectly to which they did not
express their agreement and finding no way out she escaped with Bullu @
Aditya Gupta and solemnized her marriage in the “Bashukinath” Temple
according to Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of the priest and that he
accepted her as his married wife. For the last few days, she alleged that Bullu
@ Aditya Gupta in league with his parents started demanding Rs.50,000/-
(Fifty thousand) in cash and a motorcycle in kind being the dowry as the
marriage was solemnized without dowry and in this connection they started
2
torture in various ways and finally she was driven out by the accused persons
on 29.09.2009 with her daughter with the caution that she would not be
accepted lest she would bring the dowry in cash and kind.
3. Upon service of notice, the Opposite Party No.2 put appearance
by executing Vakalatnama but no counter-affidavit has been filed.
4. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner at the outset submitted that the complainant very fairly admitted that
she was earlier married to one Pankaj Mandal at village Sarwa and without
obtaining a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act she escaped with
Bullu @ Aditya Gupta and solemnized marriage in the Temple, which cannot
be said to be the valid marriage. Second marriage in the life time of the first
husband without obtaining a decree of divorce is a void marriage having got
no sanction of law, therefore, neither Bullu @ Aditya Gupta would be deemed
to be her husband nor his near relatives would be deemed as the in-laws of
the complainant and therefore Section 498A I.P.C. is not attracted against
these petitioners, who were none other than near relations of Bullu @ Aditya
Gupta.
5. Section 498A Code of Criminal Procedure is specific, which
speaks;-
“whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband for a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
6. In the explanation the cruelty has been defined but since the
prosecution failed to establish the relationship of husband and wife between
the informant and Bullu @ Aditya Gupta, the near relations of Bullu @ Aditya
Gupta cannot be held to be the relatives of the husband of the informant and
so the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners cannot be sustained under
law.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant-Opposite
Party No.2 failed to satisfy this Court that there was valid marriage between
the informant and Bullu @ Aditya Gupta and that the alleged marriage
between them in a Temple was not a void marriage.
8. In the facts and circumstances, I find substance in the argument
of the Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the informant O.P.No.2
failed to establish that she was legally wedded wife of Bullu @ Aditya Gupta
so as to establish that the petitioners being near relatives of Bullu @ Aditya
Gupta were also liable to be criminally proceeded in the instant case.
9. For the reasons stated above, I find that the criminal proceeding
of the petitioners cannot be sustained under law and hence their entire
criminal proceeding in G.R. No.1002 of 2009, arising out of Godda (Town)
3
P.S. Case No.295 of 2009 corresponding to T.R.No.1469 of 2009 including
the order dated 09.10.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken
against them and others are quashed.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./A.F.R.