IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 556 of 2004
1. Krishna Nandan Sharma.
2. Sunuina Devi @ Kiran Devi.
3. Sidheshwar Singh.
4. Dinesh Chandra. ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Sunita Sinha. ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioners: M/s Amaresh Kumar & T.N.Mishra,
Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2: Mr. K.N.Roy, Advocate.
------------
C.A.V. on 17.08.2009 : Pronounced on 09.09.2009
------------
D.K.Sinha,J. The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order
impugned dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh in T.R.No.1113 of 2004 arising out of
Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2003 by which the petition filed
under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the discharge of the petitioners was
dismissed and the petitioners were called upon to stand charged under
Section 498A/406/34 I.P.C. as also under Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The petitioners had earlier moved Cr. Misc. No.235 of
2004 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of cognizance of the
offence taken by the Court and the said Cr. Misc. Petition was disposed
of with the observation directing the petitioners to raise all the points at
the time of framing of charge.
2. The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the
Complaint Case No. 163 of 2003 presented by the O.P.No.2 Smt. Sunita
Sinha herein reveals that she was married to the petitioner No.4 Dinesh
Chandra on 11.07.1997 and on the eve of marriage a sum of Rs.5 lakh
was spent by her father. She was taken to her matrimonial home after
marriage at Chirkunda where she lived peacefully for a month and
thereafter she was taken back to her parental home. According to the
family customs and rituals she returned back to her matrimonial home
again at Chirkunda where she lived peacefully for 4 months. Her
husband had a step mother and two step sisters and all the three began
to create trouble in various ways by stating that she was not a suitable
match for the husband petitioner No.4 herein and that her father had
deceived by not giving adequate articles in the marriage. All the accused
started perpetrating torture in various ways mentally as well as
physically. Ultimately, demand of Rs.1 lakh was raised by them before
2
the complainant with the consensus of all the accused persons to be
brought from her parental home otherwise they declared that she would
not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial home. In the meantime, her
father visited there to whom the complainant narrated her miseries and
alleged demand put to her but he expressed inability to meet out such a
huge amount. However, he arranged Rs. 75,000/- and paid it jointly to
the father-in-law and grandfather-in-law of the complainant assuming
that his daughter now would be kept with all dignity and honour. The
growing greed of the accused persons did not stop here and now they
put demand of motorcar and for that she was again mentally and
physically tortured, made to starve for nights together and the members
of the family of her husband started treating her as maidservant. Finding
no way out her father took her to Hazaribagh and from there she was
taken to Ranchi for her treatment of persisting ailment. Yet, none from
her matrimonial home came to see her. She was put under the treatment
of Dr. K.K.Sinha. It was alleged that when she was brought to her
matrimonial home after she was cured, her in-laws became violent and
reacted by asking her father to take her back as he had failed to fulfil
their demand of car. As even her husband did not show sympathy and
that she was completely neglected by her husband, her father brought
her back to Hazaribagh where she was living with her father. Her father
tried to resolve the differences, but of no avail, as the accused persons
were adamant to re-marry her husband Dinesh Chandra to another girl
and having been aggrieved by such conduct of the accused persons,
she filed complaint when the police refused to register a case.
3. Finally, it was alleged that the mother-in-law and other
accused persons retained all her ornaments, clothes, furniture and other
household articles that were presented on the eve of her marriage. The
Complaint Petition was referred to the local police station for registration
of police case No.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to
investigate into the matter.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out
that though the F.I.R. was registered against 8 named accused persons
on the basis of the complaint but the Investigating Officer after
investigation submitted charge-sheet only against 4 accused persons
who are the petitioners herein and in that manner the allegation levelled
against the accused persons by the complainant was partly disbelieved
by the Investigating Officer. As a matter of fact, the complainant was
mentally retarded and by suppressing this fact from the parents of the
bridegroom she was married to the petitioner No.4 Dinesh Chandra. The
complainant preferred the Complaint Petition on 15.02.2003 only after a
suit was filed by the husband-petitioner against the complainant-
3
O.P.No.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of the
marriage on the ground that Sunita was mentally retarded much prior to
her marriage. Her abnormality could not be cured in spite of her
treatment by Dr. K.K.Sinha at Ranchi as also by Dr. N.K.Banerjee,
famous Neuro Psychiatrist at Kulti, Burdwan (West Bengal) in spite of all
the cost having been borne by the accused persons incurred on her
treatment.
5. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that it would be evident
from the Complaint Petition that the allegations were mainly directed
against the father-in-law and the husband either of perpetrating torture or
of receiving amount from the father of the complainant-O.P.No.2 to be
invested in contract work as alleged in the complaint. Admittedly, the
petitioner No.2 Sunuina Devi @ Kiran Devi is the old step mother-in-law
and the petitioner No.3 is the old grandfather-in-law of the complainant
against whom there was omnibus allegation levelled by the complainant.
The learned Counsel firmly pointed out that on similar set of allegation
the step sisters-in-law though were exonerated from their criminal liability
as not being sent up for trial but the mother-in-law i.e. the petitioner No.2
herein is facing the rigours and ordeal of the alleged offence under
Section 498A I.P.C. Similar is the case with the petitioner No.3
Sidheshwar Singh, who is a quite old person and is the grandfather-in-
law of the complainant, nothing to do with the family affairs of his son
and grandson, living in seclusion since long. Therefore, the learned
Counsel submitted that the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh grossly erred
by not considering their case of discharge. As regards allegations
against the husband and father-in-law, the Counsel submitted that the
same has been levelled as the counter product of the suit that has been
brought about by the husband at the earlier point in time for dissolution
of his marriage with the complainant on the grounds that has got legal
sanction under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. K.N.Roy
appearing for the Complainant-O.P.No.2 vehemently opposed the
contention by submitting that all the four petitioners are equally liable for
the miseries and the torture extended to the complainant in relation to
demand of dowry. As a matter of fact, the complainant had suffered
mental shock and pressure on account of persistent demand of dowry in
cash and kind at the hands of the petitioners and others. Even she was
forced to starve for days together and left uncared and ultimately she
was brought to Ranchi by her father and she underwent treatment in the
care of Dr. K.K.Sinha. As a matter of fact, all the petitioners perpetrated
torture and therefore, they do not deserve to be discharged keeping in
4
view the gravity of the allegation. It is not the fact that the Complaint
Petition was counter-blast of the suit that was brought about by the
husband for the dissolution of his marriage but the complainant
displayed highest form of tolerance at their hands and when she came to
learn that the accused persons have designed to re-marry her husband
with another girl, she broke her silence and filed complaint. The
petitioners in no manner deserve sympathy of this Court for discharge.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
find that there was direct allegation against the father-in-law, step
mother-in-law and the husband in the Complaint Petition and the
grandfather-in-law has been arrayed as an accused only because he
was the head of the family. I find substance in the argument that he
being the oldest person has got least interference in the family affairs of
his son and he was not the ultimate beneficiary of Rs.75,000/- which was
allegedly received by the father-in-law and husband for investment in the
contract work. He was also not the ultimate beneficiary of the car that
was demanded from the complainant and in this regard torture was
perpetrated to her by the other accused persons including the mother-in-
law, father-in-law and the husband. In view of the above discussions I do
not find that a prima facie case is made out against the old grandfather-
in-law i.e the petitioner No.3 Sidheshwar Singh herein for the alleged
offence under Section 498A/406/34 I.P.C. as also under Section ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. Contrary to that I find prima facie allegations
against the father-in-law Krishna Nandan Sharma, step mother-in-law
Sunuina Devi @ Kiran Devi and the husband- petitioner No.4 Dinesh
Chandra for the alleged offence and their Counsel failed to show any
convincing ground for their discharge. I find that the order impugned
dated 31.05.2004 passed by the S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in T.R.No.1113 of
2004 is well discussed which does not call for interference except what
has been discussed in favour of the petitioner No.3 Sidheshwar Singh
referred to hereinbefore who is discharged from criminal liability in the
instant case. Otherwise the order impugned does not call for.
8. I do not find merit in this Cr. Revision accordingly it is
dismissed with observation discharging the petitioner No.3 Sidheshwar
Singh in the manner indicated above. Trial is directed to be expedited.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./A.F.R.