SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Mrs. Rosy Kumari, wife of Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 694 Of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Alok Anand.
For the Opp.Parties : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Prasad.

When the charge sheet is submitted, the trial court should consider the merits of the case instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Specific allegations against the accused should be considered, and the trial court should assess the sufficiency of material to frame charges.

Headnote:

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Preeti Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs. Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604; Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 281; Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642; State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, AIR 2019 SC 2499; Iqbal alias Bala and others v. State of U.P.and others, (2023) 8 SCC 734

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner no.3 has died, and the petitioners do not press the criminal miscellaneous petition for petitioner no.3. The petitioners seek to quash the criminal proceeding against petitioner nos. 1 & 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition as without merit and vacated the interim order. The trial court was directed to consider the contention of the petitioners regarding insufficient material to frame charges.

Issues: Quashing of criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., sufficiency of material to frame charges against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that when the charge sheet is submitted, the trial court should take a call on the merits of the case instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Specific allegations against the petitioners differentiate this case from previous judgments. The court also emphasized that the trial court should consider the contention of the petitioners regarding insufficient material to frame charges.

Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed as without merit, and the trial court was directed to consider the contention of the petitioners regarding insufficient material to frame charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.3 –Sanjay Kumar Singh has died and files a photocopy of the death certificate of the petitioner no.3.

3. Let the photocopy of the death certificate of the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh be kept in the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners does not press this criminal miscellaneous petition so far as the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh is concerned.

5. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed; so far as the petitioner no.3 - Sanjay Kumar Singh is concerned.

6. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 that this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 including the order dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in the said G.R. Case No. 2558 of 2021 arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 441 of 2020 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

7. The allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 is that the petitioner no.1 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) and the petitioner no.2 being the mother-in-law of the informant –Madhuri Singh treated her with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry, being not satisfied with the dowry of Rs.9,00,000/- and as per the instruction of the husband of the informant, an amount of another Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the friend of the husband of the informant namely Rajesh Kumar Singh and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the another friend of the husband of the informant namely Pravin Kumar and further an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred to the bank account of brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant namely Raj Roshan Bhadoria and a cash of Rs.1,51,000/- was handed over to the husband of the informant and the said amount of dowry demand was met due to pressure and demand made. Besides the cash amounts, jewelries and other consumer durable items and furniture as well as utensils were given. After the marriage, the informant went to her in-laws house immediately. After the marriage of the informant, inter-alia, the petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.1 along with other relatives of the husband of the informant ill-treated the informant, assaulted her, tortured her mentally and physically and treated her as a servant instead of a newly married bride. The petitioners used to assault the informant with hand as well as by throwing slippers at her and at the instance of the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant namely Nisha Singh, the petitioners and others were calling the informant a lame person and were coercing the informant to bring a vehicle from her father. The petitioners did not give food to the informant even for a couple of days; on several occasions. The father of the informant inter-alia upon the pressure from the petitioner no.1 after his retirement took loan from the bank and purchased one Maruti Wagon R VXI Car and gave it to the husband of the informant and only after that the husband of the informant came to Ranchi and took the informant and the new vehicle to the in-laws house of the informant. Thereafter, the informant became pregnant and was unable to do the household works and inter-alia, the petitioner no.2 sent the informant to her paternal house at Ranchi and told that the informant must deliver a son or else she should die at Ranchi. The informant was blessed with a son on 21.06.2019 but no one came from her matrimonial house and all the expenses were met by the retired

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top