Category Archives: Jarkhand HC

#Exparte #divorce against wife affirmed as she did NOT #respond #EVEN #after receiving #notice

Husband marries a woman thinking she is not married earlier. Some years into the relationship strains develop in the relationship. One fine day husband comes to know that wife is already married and has a kid from the earlier marriage. He files for divorce before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj. Wife receives notice and replies in writing seeking time to transfer case to her own hometown, but for some reason such transfer order is never obtained by her. Neither does she appear for the case. Husband wins exparte divorce, which wife appeals at HC. HC affirms the exparte decree as the wife’s fault of non appearance etc come out clearly

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No. 187 of 2010

Smt. Sheela Devi …. … Appellant

Versus

Dr. Braj Bhushan Singh … … Respondent


CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK


For the Appellant : Mrs. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.S.K. Murari, Advocate.


 

09/ 28.03.2017
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

  1. The appellant wife is aggrieved by the ex-parte decree of divorce passed against her, by Judgment and Decree dated 22.05.2010, by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Matrimonical Case No. 28 of 2009.
  2. It may be stated that this appeal also was filed after inordinate delay of 101 days, which was condoned by order dated 13.05.2011 passed in I.A No. 3700 of 2010.

  3. The petitioner respondent had brought the suit of the decree of divorce stating that he was practicing medicine in Homeopathy and his first wife had died on 14.09.2005 due to cancer. Thereafter, he wanted to marry an unmarried lady and the father of the appellant approached him stating that his daughter was unmarried and of a good behaviour, and believing this the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.06.2008 at a Temple in Patna City, Patna. Thereafter both the parties came to Daltonganj where the husband was practicing medicine in Homeopathy, and started living together as husband and wife. It is alleged that after sometime the wife started pressuring the husband to transfer his entire property in her name, which was ignored by the petitioner respondent, whereupon she started subjecting him to cruelty and torture. She also used to lock his chamber, where the husband was practicing. Thereafter, the petitioner-respondent brought his wife to his in-laws’ place, where his father-in- law asked him to leave his wife at his house for sometime and he will try to correct her behaviour. On 15.08.2008 for the first time the father-in-law of the petitioner husband informed him that his wife was already married earlier and she had female child from her earlier husband and he had to maintain the female child also. The petitioner husband was shocked to hear this and he was not ready for the same. On 09.08.2009 the wife came to the residence of the petitioner respondent at Daltonganj along with a female child aged about two and half years and thereafter she started committing physical and mental torture upon the petitioner respondent in various ways. She had also tried to commit suicide by pouring Kerosene Oil on herself in the presence of his patients, but with the help of his patients she could be prevented from committing suicide. She also used to subject the petitioner respondent to cruelty in various ways making the life of the petitioner respondent miserable, which forced the petitioner-respondent to file the suit for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce in the Court below.

  4. The impugned Judgment shows that registered notice was issued to the opposite party appellant by the Court below, which was also validly served upon her on 12.12.2009. Thereafter, she also wrote a letter to the Court below acknowledging the receipt of the notice, and stating that she intended to move the High Court for transfer of the case from Daltonganj to Jamshedpur, where she was living with her parents, but that was also not done by her and no order of transfer was received in the Court below. Ultimately by order dated 30.03.2010 the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding.

  5. It appears from the impugned Judgment that four witnesses were examined by the petitioner in the Court below, including himself, and the witnesses proved the case of cruelty and mental cruelty upon the petitioner respondent. The appellant did not appear in the Court below even for cross- examining those witnesses, and ultimately, by the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 22.05.2010, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by the Court below, giving permanent alimony of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the wife.

  6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, no family member of the petitioner-respondent was examined in the Court below, rather only non-family member witnesses were examined, who had only supported the case of the petitioner-respondent. Learned counsel submitted that in any event the permanent alimony granted to her is at a very lower side.

  7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submitted that in spite of receiving notice, the appellant did not appear in the Court below, even though she had acknowledged by writing a letter to the Court below that she had received the notice. After giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant the matter was fixed for ex-parte proceeding and after examining witnesses of the petitioner respondent, who proved the case of cruelty and mental cruelty upon the petitioner by the opposite-party-wife, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by the decree of divorce. Learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree and even the present appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 101 days.

  8. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, we find no valid reason for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It is an admitted position that the notice issued to the appellant was validly served upon her and she had also written a letter to the Court below acknowledging the same and seeking time for bringing the order for transfer of the case. No application for transfer of the case was filed by the appellant-wife in the High Court, and after waiting for sufficient period the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding. The petitioner respondent examined four witnesses, including himself, to prove the case of the cruelty and mental cruelty by the appellant and accordingly, the suit was decreed on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment, nor any valid reason for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree, dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.

  9. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the permanent alimony granted to the appellant is of the lower side, we are of the considered view that for enhancement of the amount of permanent alimony it is always open to the appellant wife to move the competent Court and to prove her case for any such enhancement under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

  10. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

( H. C. Mishra, J.) (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) P.K.S./Anjali

Man pays 27 lakhs for freedom AFTER fighting 20+ years !! (Was also paying monthly maintenance)

Key excerpts :

“…The parties are highly in litigating terms and admittedly, both the parties are living separately since more than twenty years. The record shows that all efforts of reconciliation between the parties, either at the level of Court below, or by this Court, have only failed….”

“….on 12.01.2017, that ultimately the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and they agreed to settle all their disputes and to finally separate themselves from each other, severing all relationships, on payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-as one time permanent alimony and litigation cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 27,00,000/- to the respondent wife by the appellant husband. It was also agreed upon, that upon such severing of the relationship between the parties, the other criminal cases pending between them shall also come to an end…..”

Thus ends a LONG LONG fight for freedom !!

===========================================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 138 of 2010

With

I.A. No. 1163 of 2017

Bipin Kumar Jha …… Applicant/ Appellant
Versus
Meena Jha …… Opp. Party/Respondent

With

Cr. Rev. No. 943 of 2013

Meena Jha …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. …… Opp. Parties/Respondents

With

Cr. Rev. No. 838 of 2013

Bipin Kumar Jha …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. …… Opp. Parties/Respondents

With

Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009

Bipin Kumar Jha …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. …… Opp. Parties/Respondents


CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate

Order No.16 dated 8.2.2017

F.A. No. 138 of 2010 and I.A. No. 1163 of 2017

  1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who are also the parties in the connected Criminal Revisions.
  2. The appellant Bipin Kumar Jha is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.05.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa, in Matrimonial Suit No. 21 of 2006, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion by the respondent, has been dismissed by the Court below, finding that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata, as both the grounds had been decided between the parties in the earlier round of litigation up to the High Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  3. During the pendency of this appeal, efforts for conciliation between the parties were made, but the same failed. The parties are highly in litigating terms and admittedly, both the parties are living separately since more than twenty years. The record shows that all efforts of reconciliation between the parties, either at the level of Court below, or by this Court, have only failed.

  4. It was submitted by the learned counsels for both the sides on the last occasion on 12.01.2017, that ultimately the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and they agreed to settle all their disputes and to finally separate themselves from each other, severing all relationships, on payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-as one time permanent alimony and litigation cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 27,00,000/- to the respondent wife by the appellant husband. It was also agreed upon, that upon such severing of the relationship between the parties, the other criminal cases pending between them shall also come to an end.

  5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsels for both the sides, the matter was adjourned for today, enabling learned counsels for both the parties to file joint compromise petition in the aforesaid terms. Pursuant thereto, a joint compromise petition has been filed in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017, in which the affidavit is sworn by both the parties, reiterating the aforesaid terms. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, two bank drafts drawn upon S.B.I. bearing Nos.731734 and 718423 for the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, totaling Rs. 27,00,000/-, have been handed over to the respondent by the appellant in the Court, which the respondent has accepted and she has also acknowledged the same in the order-sheet of this Court. Since, as agreed upon by both the parties, the amount of permanent alimony and the cost of litigation have been paid by the appellant to the respondent in the Court, the marriage between the parties, i.e., Bipin Kumar Jha and Meena Jha, is hereby, dissolved by a decree of divorce.

  6. Let the decree be prepared accordingly, with the joint compromise petition in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017, forming part of the decree.

  7. This appeal accordingly, stands disposed of in the terms of joint compromise petition filed in I.A. No. 1163 of 2017. The interlocutory application I.A. No. 1163 of 2017 also stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 943 of 2013 and Cr. Rev. No. 838 of 2013

  1. We are informed that the appellant was making payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and the respondent had filed Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2009 for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month by order dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Family Court, Bokaro, in the said case. Against the said order, both the parties have filed Criminal Revisions in this Court. The husband has challenged the enhancement of the amount in Cri. Rev. No. 838 of 2013 (Bipin Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.), and the wife has filed Cri Rev. No. 943 of 2013 (Meena Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.), for further enhancement of the maintenance amount. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  2. Since, as agreed upon between the parties, the amount of permanent one time alimony has been paid to the respondent, the appellant is hereby, absolved from the responsibilities of the making the payment of any monthly maintenance to the respondent henceforth, and accordingly, in view of the agreement reached between the parties, the order dated 15.06.2013 in Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2009, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, is hereby, set aside.

  3. Since the appellant is absolved from the responsibilities of making payment of any monthly maintenance to the respondent henceforth, there shall be no deduction of the amount of monthly maintenance from the salary of the appellant from the month of February, 2017.

  4. Both these Criminal Revisions stand disposed of with the directions as above.

Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009

  1. This Criminal Revision pending between the parties as the appellant husband was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case filed by respondent wife, by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned SDJM, Bokaro, in G.R. Case No. 99 of 1996 / Tr. No. 06 of 2007. The said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Bokaro, by Judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 97 of 2007 / Cri. Appeal No. 115 of 2007, against which this Cri. Revision No. 887 of 2009 has been filed by the husband, which is pending in this Court.

  2. Since, this criminal case arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties which has been amicably settled by them, severing all their relationships, and the amount of permanent one time alimony and the cost of litigation have also been paid by the husband to the wife in the Court, we are of the considered view that for securing the ends of justice, this criminal case also must come an end.

  3. Even though the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable in nature, taking a cue from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, we, in exercise of the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in order to secure the ends of justice, set aside the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned SDJM, Bokaro, in G.R. Case No. 99 of 1996 / Tr. No. 06 of 2007, as also the Judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2007 / Cri. Appeal No. 115 of 2007, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Bokaro. Consequently, the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 is acquitted of the charge and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  4. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 887 of 2009 also stands disposed of.

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

kunal/punit


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

False 498a on 13 people with vengeance after divorce & recovery of dower. accused wait 7 years for justice ! Jarkhand HC

After accepting dower amount & getting back all utensils as demanded, wife files a complaint case, with Dowry etc allegation of period prior to filing of petition for recovery of dower !! She does so on 13 people including the husband and his family members !! The lower (magistrate) court also takes cognizance !!

So husband and party approach the HC. The Honourable HC concludes “… I find from the materials available on record that this complaint case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners after recovery of the Dower amount and articles through a competent court….” and “the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1397 of 2008 are, hereby, quashed..” !!

This is the sad fate in India where Cognizance is taken by lower courts, and a false 498a case, that too on 13 people of husband’s family and they are made to run around for approx 7 years to get justice !! (2009 to 2016 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 336 of 2009

1.Md. Sayeed Anwar son of Hamid Ansari @ Abdul Hamid Ansari
2. Aziz Ansari s/o late Majid Ansari
3. Hamid @ Abdul Hamid Ansari s/o Majid Ansari
4. Munni @ Munni Khatoon w/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
5. Sajid @ Sajid Anwar @ Babu s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
6. Zakir Hussain @ Zakir Anwar @ Lala s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
7. Rayees Ansari @ Rayesh Anwar s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
8. Ruby Naaz@ Rubi Naz d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
9. Guria Praveen @ Guria d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
10. Soni w/o Imtiyaz Ansari
11. Ashraf Ansari s/o Samsul Ansari
12. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari s/o Khalil Ansari
13. Anjum Ara @ Anjum w/o Ashraf Ansari, all r/o village Chatabad, Bhandaridih
P.S Katras Dist. Dhanbad .……………… Petitioners

Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Hamida Khatoon @ Guriya Arshi d/o Md. Jasim Ansari and w/o Md. Sayeed
Anwar r/o village Rahmatganj, Pandarpala, P.S Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.) Dist.
Dhanbad ………………. Opp. Parties


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

For the Petitioners : M/sr. Gautam Kumar & Birat Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP.
For the O.P No. 2 : Mr. M.K, Laik, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate


CAV on- 11.09.2015
Pronounced on 11/05/2016

  1. Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ” the Code”), the petitioners 13 in number have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.02.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1397 of 2008.
  2. The prosecution case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short is that, at the instance of the complainant-Hamid Khatoon @ Guriya Arshi, the aforesaid complaint case was filed against the petitioners with the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1, Md. Sayeed Anwar on 22.11.2005 and after the marriage, she remained in her Sasural for a month but, thereafter her husband and other in-laws started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. On 30.04.2008, the petitioners tried to set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil, however, she could save herself and informed the police station on 02.05.2008, but when no action was taken, this complaint case was filed. <SMALL>http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com</SMALL&gt;
  3. After examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and other witnesses, the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue summons for the appearance of the petitioners.
  4. It appears from the record that before filing of complaint case on 21.07.2008 the opposite party no.2- the complainant had filed a Civil Misc. Case No. 9 of 2008 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 292 of the Mohamdan Law for recovery of Dower of Rs. 39,000/- on the ground that her husband has already given her Talaque and the court after issuance of notice to the present petitioner no.1 directed to pay the Dower amount of Rs. 39,000/- and also directed to return all the articles as per the list given by the complainant. Accordingly, Rs. 39,000/- was handed over to the complainant and an endorsement was made by the complainant on the order-sheet of the said case, which is enclosed as Annexure-3 with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The articles were also returned to the complainant of this case and the list of those articles with the signature of the complainant is enclosed as Annexure-4 with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
  5. Learned counsel Mr. Gautam appearing for the petitioners seriously contented that the continuance of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is bad in law, perverse and abuse of process of law. It was also submitted that the present proceeding is nothing except a vengeance to hurt the petitioners. Hence, continuance of this proceeding amounts to providing a forum to the complainant to settle earlier differences or to take revenge.
  6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Laik learned Senior Advocate representing the complainant-opposite party no.2 submitted that at this stage, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed as the allegations made in the complaint petition relates to a period before filing of the petition in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court and even though the complainant had admitted the factum of Talaque given by the petitioner no.1 and acceptance of Dower amount and utensils, the petitioners cannot be absolved from criminality.
  7. Apparently, after accepting the Dower amount and getting back all the utensils as demanded by the complainant, the present complaint case was filed with the allegation of period prior to filing of the petition under Section 292 of Mohamdan Law before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. It is not that the petitioner no.1, husband of the complainant, had filed a petition before a competent court for divorce, rather it was the complainant, who had filed the petition for recovery of the Dower amount and utensils, which were given to the petitioner no.1 during marriage. In a case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2004 CRI. L. J. 2989 while considering the similar situation, the court held that when a case was filed by husband for divorce then a complaint was filed and the court held that it is a motivated one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 held that the case filed by way of revenge should be quashed as the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court. In almost a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in the case M. Saravana Porselvi Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & Others; 2008 (3) East Cr. C 320 (SC) held that if it is a case of customary divorce, the question in regard to existence of good custom may have to be gone into in a civil proceeding. But Criminal prosecution shall not lie. It was initiated malafide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of Court.
  8. In the above case also after divorce the party accepted the permanent alimony and thereafter filed a case under Section 498-A I.P.C almost similar to the instant case. The High Court in that case exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code had quashed the proceeding. Whereafter aggrieved party filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of High Court. <SMALL>http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com</SMALL&gt;
  9. I find from the materials available on record that this complaint case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners after recovery of the Dower amount and articles through a competent court.
  10. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The order 02.02.2009 by which cognizance of offence has been taken and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1397 of 2008 are, hereby, quashed.

(R.N.Verma, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi Dated, 11th May, 2016

Anjali/N.A.F.R.

<SMALL>*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


</SMALL>

498a ablaa got re married and is living with NEW husband ! old Chapie runs for quash ! Jarkhand HC

Men and women want to move ON in life … It would be nice IF they move on WITHOUT trampling others ! However some don’t care because there is NO punishment for such FALSE 498a cases. so, some just file a 498a case, do NOT follow and move on ..i.e. get married. The sad part is the the men who are victims of SUCH 498a are unable to move on !!, and here is one such case

The court notices the IMPORTANT POINT ….. and that is ….
“….The important aspect which I would like to consider in the present case is that the complainant got herself married within two years from the date of filing of the complaint case and since then she has been living peacefully with her new husband. It is not reported that after she got herself re-married any untoward at the hands of any of the petitioner has ever taken place. It is also required to be considered that all the petitioners are living separately since prior to the date of occurrence and the complainant has not specifically averted that any of them were present on the date of incident and they committed any overt act……”

And the Hon court goes on to order : “… Considering all these aspect and the judgment cited above, I feel inclined to allow this Cr.M.P. and accordingly order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 386/1995 stands set aside and the prosecution arising out of complaint case against these petitioners stands quashed….”

************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P.No. 70 of 2002

1. Shashi Kumar Verma.
2. Raj Kumar Prasad.
3. Raj Kumar Srivastava.
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha.
5. Smt. Sanju Verma.
6. Smt. Kiran Sinha.
7. Smt. Muni Srivastava.          … …   … …Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Sandhya Rani.               … … …       …Opp.Parties
**************************
CORAM: THE HONE’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY

For the Petitioners:        Mr. P.S.Dayay, Advocate.
For the State:             A.P.P.
**************************
07/ 17.06.2015

This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 386/1995 whereby the petitioners have been directed to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were directed to be summoned.

2. The facts in brief is that the complainant namely, Smt. Sandhya Rani was married with Ashok Kumar Verma on 15.02.1989 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage she had started living with her husband and in-laws at Patna. The husband of the complainant died on 06.09.1994 and after that the complainant came back to Dhanbad to her parents house. The complainant again went back to her matrimonial home but she was not welcomed and subjected to torture and assault by her father-in-law and relatives of her husband. She came back to Dhanbad and lodged a complaint vide C.P. Case No. 386/1995. Enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate after considering the statement of complainant recorded on S.A. and the statement of witnesses examined during enquiry passed the impugned order directing the petitioners and other accused to face trial. It is necessary to mention that initially the learned C.J.M. did not take cognizance and dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the complainant preferred Cr.Misc. Petition No. 534/1996(R) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ranchi Bench). The order dated 30.08.1995 passed by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the court- below and after that the learned Magistrate, Smt. Reeta Mishra passed the order impugned.

3. It is submitted that place of occurrence was at Patna is not in dispute but the complaint has been filed at Dhanbad. Learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the complaint, the complainant got herself married with Nitya Nand Prasad Lala on 4.6.1997 and from that date her second conjugal life commenced.

4. It is submitted that this Court has considered Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. and held that offence though committed at Patna but consequences ensued at Dhanbad because the complainant was suffering with mental agony. In this context, judgment reported in 2008 (XI) S.C.C. 103 “Bhura Ram & Ors. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” has been referred. It is argued that offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not continuing offence and, therefore, the place of occurrence will be the place for criminal prosecution.

5. Learned Counsel has further submitted that complaint was filed against 13 accused but cognizance has been taken only against original accused no. 1 to 10 and out of those accused, father-in-law accused no.1 and two other accused i.e. accused no.2 and accused no.5 are now no more in this world. The petitioners before this court are two married sister-in-law and their husband one Gotni and her husband and son of sister-in-law. These petitioners have nothing to do with the domestic affairs prevailing in the house of the husband of the complainant because they had been living separately in mess and kitchen with their family members. Furthermore, vague statement regarding occurrence has been given in the complaint. She has stated that she was subjected to torture and assault while she had been to her matrimonial home. It is not specifically indicated whether these petitioners were present in the house at that point of time or not. No specific overt act committed by any of the petitioner has been disclosed by the complainant in her S.A. At this juncture, learned Counsel has referred the judgment reported in 2013(1) J.L.J.R. S.C. 115 “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vrs. State of U.P. & Anr.” and submitted that the complainant had started living peacefully with her new husband since the year 1997 and that clearly indicates that now she is not suffering under any mental agony due to the torture, if any, committed on her by her in-laws after the death of her husband.

6. In the circumstances stated above, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party has submitted that point of jurisdiction has already been decided by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.534/1996(R) and therefore question of jurisdiction cannot be discussed again in this Cr.M.P. The complainant has knocked the door of the Court for seeking justice for the occurrence which had taken place on 6.9.1994 and onwards. She was subjected to torture and assault by her father-in-law and relatives of her husband and that too after the death of her husband. If the offence was committed, wrong doer are liable to be punished. There is no merit in this Cr.M.P. and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have gone through the documents and record placed before me. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C., the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed will have the jurisdiction to try the offence and the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. is not a continuing offence.

In the present case, the complainant admits that occurrence had taken place at Patna.

The important aspect which I would like to consider in the present case is that the complainant got herself married within two years from the date of filing of the complaint case and since then she has been living peacefully with her new husband. It is not reported that after she got herself re-married any untoward at the hands of any of the petitioner has ever taken place. It is also required to be considered that all the petitioners are living separately since prior to the date of occurrence and the complainant has not specifically averted that any of them were present on the date of incident and they committed any overt act.

9. Considering all these aspect and the judgment cited above, I feel inclined to allow this Cr.M.P. and accordingly order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 386/1995 stands set aside and the prosecution arising out of complaint case against these petitioners stands quashed.

[D.N.Upadhyay,J.]

P.K.S.