Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007
With
Cr. Revision No. 410 of 2007
Against the order dated 9.3.2007 passed in T.R. No. 734 of 2007, corresponding to
P.C.R. Case No. 404 of 2005 passed by S.D.J.M., Dumka.
-----
Mukund Chandra Pandit .....Petitioner ( In Cr. Rev. No. 256 of 2007)
Sunita Jha .....Petitioner ( In Cr. Rev. No. 410 of 2007)
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Asha Rani Pal ....Opposite parties ( In both cases)
--
For the Petitioners : M/s. K.P.Deo, Ashish Verma, Advs. ( In both cases)
For the Opp. Parties : M/s. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Adv.
Prakash Jha, Adv..
--
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. On 18.4.2009 Pronounced on 29/4/2009
Pradeep Kumar, J Both the Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007 and Cr.
Revision No. 410 of 2007 arise out of the same case i.e. P.C.R. Case
No. 404 of 2005 and both the orders have been passed by S.D.J.M.,
Dumka, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka refused the petition
of the petitioner, Sunita Jha for discharge by his order dated
9.3.2007
and also the petition for discharge filed by petitioner,
Mukund Chandra Pandit on the same day, for which Cr. Revision
No. 256 of 2007 has been filed. Since both the revisions arise out of
the same impugned judgment, hence they were heard together.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sunita Jha that she was not a member of the family of
complainant, Smt. Asha Rani Pal’s in-law and as such no case under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against her. On
behalf of the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of
the evidence of the complainant herself in Court the order taking
cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and fit to be set aside
and hence the order refusing to discharge him is also bad and fit to
be aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also
learned counsel for the complainant, Asha Rani Pal has submitted
that although the petitioner, Sunita Jha she was not a member of the
family of her husband, but when she came with her husband and
started living in her husband’s house they tortured her while living
-2-
there as wife and husband. In that view of the matter, she became
member of the family of the husband of the complainant and as such
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is fully attracted and the
learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit that the complainant has not
examined herself as witness in Court, is equally baseless. Since
complaint petition filed by the petitioner itself will show as also it
will appear from the Lower Court Record that the complainant was
examined in Court under Solemn Affirmation and thereafter two
witnesses were examined and Court found a prima facie case under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners
and as such the prayer for discharge of both the accused were rightly
rejected by the trial court and it requires no interference by this
Court and as such both the revision applications are fit to be
dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties and after considering the
evidences available on record, I find that as per Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code for making out a charge, it is necessary that the
accused should be a member of the family of the husband of the
complainant. Section 498A reads as under:
Section 498A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty- whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of 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.
Now in the light of the above definition given under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, it has been seen as to whether the
petitioner, Sunita Jha comes within the ambit of Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code or not?
5. From perusal of the F.I.R., which shows that the complainant
has alleged in her complaint petition at para 5 that on 17.7.2005 her
husband-petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit came to his house at
Village Simla along with his lover Sunita Jha and when the
complainant asked as to why he has brought her there then he said
that from today she will live as his wife and if she has got any
objection then she may go to her father’s house in order to bring Rs.
1 lakh and a motorcycle from her father and thereafter the petitioner
-3-
and others assaulted her and confined her in a room. Thereafter, she
informed her father on 24.7.2005 and her father came along with
others then both the accused persons became furious and ousted her
from the house and assaulted her and her father also.
6. The complainant, Smt. Asha Rani Pal was examined on
solemn affirmation on 12.8.2005 she again stated that on 17th July,
2005 her husband-accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit came from
Jamtara to his village Simla along with petitioner, Sunita Jha and
when she objected he stated that she may go to her father’s house in
order to bring Rs. 1 lakh and a motorcycle and she was assaulted by
both of them. Accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit said that Sunit Jha
will now live with him. On information her father came on
24.7.2005 then all the accused assaulted her and her father by
confining them in a room. She further stated that accused, Sunita Jha
by force took away her golden churi from her hand and also
snatched her golden chain from her neck and payal from her leg and
lastly ousted her from the house.
7. Thus, from the statement of the complainant in court as also
her statement in the complaint petition, it is apparent that the
petitioner, Sunita Jha on 17th July, 2005 came along with petitioner,
Mukund Chandra Pandit from Jamtara to village Simla and started
living with accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit as his wife and on
24.7.2005 stated under solemn affirmation by the complainant that
Sunita Jha and Mukund Chandra Pandit both assaulted the
complainant and accused, Sunita Jha snatched golden churi, golden
chain and payal from her body.
8. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the complainant under
solemn affirmation that Sunita Jha was living as wife of the
complainant’s husband Mukund Chandra Pandit in her house and
thereby she became a member of the family of her husband and there
is direct allegation of assault and torture against accused, Sunita Jha
and Mukund Chandra Pandit and as such the court has rightly found
a prima facie case against both the petitioners and took cognizance
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The witnesses
examined in Court, namely, P.W.1, Kanhai Pal also stated the same
thing in para 4 and Mukti Pal, who was examined as witness no. 2.,
stated the said fact in para 3 and 4 of her evidence that accused,
-4-
Sunita Jha came with accused, Mukund Chandra Pandit and started
living in his house as his wife and both of them assaulted her
daughter and asked her to bring 1 lakh and a motorcycle and ousted
her from the house, so the witnesses have also fully supported the
version given in the complaint petition, all the evidences make out a
prima facie case against both the petitioners under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and the Court rightly refused to discharge
them vide its order dated 9.3.2007.
9. I find no merit in the revision applications hence both the
revision applications are dismissed.
[ Pradeep Kumar,J]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 29/4/2009
JK/NAFR