IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the need for circumspection in exercising the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

This matter was earlier referred to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) for mediation between the parties. A report has been received from JHALSA, wherein, it has been stated that the mediation failed.

2. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit.

3. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.116/2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1931/2013 registered under Section 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh).

5. Subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken and that was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3664 of 2016, which was allowed vide order dated 29.06.2016. Hence, the charge-sheet and order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2014 are also under challenge in this petition.

6. I.A. No.2649 of 2020 has been filed for amendment in prayer portion of the Cr.M.P.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, the order dated 01.12.2014 has been passed by the learned court, by which, charge of offence under Section 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed against the petitioners.

8. It appears that in the said I.A., no order has been passed. Today this I.A. has been placed, however objection is being made by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that the charge has already been framed, this Court may not allow the said I.A.

9. The Court has taken into consideration the nature of the allegation made in the FIR as well as subsequent development and also considering that the order taking cognizance was allowed to be challenged by earlier order and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

10. Let this I.A. be treated as part of the Cr.M.P. No.643 of 2014.

11. Accordingly, I.A. No.2649 of 2020 is disposed of.

12. Hence, the order dated 01.12.2014 is also under challenge in this petition.

13. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the marriage of the informant Bibha Rani was solemnized with Sanjeev Pandey on 27.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the father of the informant transferred Rs.6 Lakhs cash from his account to the account of the informant's husband and gave many things to the informant in the form of gifts and spend lot of money. Everything was well till six months, but afterward the informant was tortured. The accused persons used to force to bring money from her father. In the meantime, they used to assault and abuse her. The informant would tolerate everything. In the meantime, she became pregnant. She was sent to her father's house. She gave birth to a baby boy on 04.10.2010. The informant went to her in-laws house and, thereafter, her father gave Rs.50,000/-to her husband. When the informant reached there, then the accused persons demanded that why her father did not give gold and silver to his grandson. She used to tolerate many tortures and have gone to her father's house many times. They now demanded Rs.8 Lakhs from her as her parents was not able to arrange the said amount, she went back to her father's house. She came to her sasural on 27.01.2013 at the time of marriage of her nanad Annu. At that time also, the accused persons demanded Rs.8 Lakhs. They snatched all the jewelleries of the informant by breaking the lock of the almirah and had a plan to throw her from the roof of the house. She somehow managed to escape by locking herself and her son in the room. The informant's father and other people came there to save her. She then returned back to her father's house. The accused perso