IMPORTANT POINT
At the time of examining prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted

3. The complainant/informant is calling in question the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P No.1291 of 2021 whereby the proceedings initiated against respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘DP Act’) and the non-bailable warrants issued against them came to be quashed.

4. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal can be crystallised as under:

5. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 8 came to be solemnised under the Special Marriages Act on 05.10.2018 at Kolkata and as per the prevalent customs on 18.01.2019 at Jamshedpur. As respondent No. 8 was residing at Germany, appellant travelled with her husband to Frankfurt-Germany on 03.02.2019. The grievance of the appellant was that her father-in-law and mother-in-law (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) were complaining of not having brought sufficient dowry and she was abused for the said reason. Though she had returned to India for short stay, she is said to have travelled back to Germany and on returning back she found her husband behaving strangely. It is the further claim of the appellant that she was badly treated and was abused by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 when she went back to her in-laws’ house at Kolkata and she was forcibly restrained from entering marital home and was physically assaulted. She also claimed that once she entered her matrimonial home, she was locked inside and with the help of her parents she could come out of captivity; she also contended that she was compelled to leave her marital house both at Kolkata and Frankfurt. In this background, appellant lodged a complaint on 04.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) with the respondent No.2 which resulted in FIR No.68 of 2021 being registered against respondents 3 to 8 herein.

6. On account of notices issued to the respondent Nos.3 to 8 by the Jurisdictional Police (respondent No.2) for the purposes of investigation, having not been answered, resulted in the Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants against all the 6 accused namely respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein. They were unsuccessful in their attempts to seek cancellation of non-bailable warrants and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein came to be arrested on 17.06.2021. Respondents 3 to 7 filed several applications for grant of bail and were partly successful.

7. For quashing of the non-bailable warrants issued by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and also for quashing of the entire proceedings a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) came to be filed in Cr.M.P No.1291 of 2021. The High Court by the impugned order quashed the proceedings primarily on the grounds of (i) respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein were arrested without following the due process of law; (ii) the allegations made in the complaint are omnibus; and, (iii) that the Court of Jamshedpur does not have jurisdiction. Hence, the informant/complainant (wife) has filed this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.

9. It is the contention of the Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the High Court has committed a serious error in quashing the proceedings, that too on the premise that there is non-compliance of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and even assuming for a moment that there was non-compliance, that itself would not result in the proceedings itself being quashed and at the most the non-bailable warrants issued against accused could have been quashed. Hence, she would contend that the High Court erred in quashing the entire proceedings. She would further contend that on a meaningful reading of the complaint it would clearly disclose the offence being made out and as such the High Court ought not to have interfered with the pending investigation and th