IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Nayeem Sheikh and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 612 of 2016
Decided On : 20-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Opposite party no.2 has refused to accept the notice and in view of that, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been validly served, which was observed by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2017. Today on repeated calls also, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in view of that, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2.
2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1687/14 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2014, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih.
4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant was married to petitioner no.1 in the year 2003. At the time of marriage, cash, gold and articles were given. After marriage, the complainant went to sasural and lived properly for three years and thereafter she was being tortured by her in-laws and demand of Rs.50,000/-and two wheeler was made as dowry and on non-fulfillment, she was tortured. It was further alleged that several times, meeting was convened to keep her properly but the accused persons never changed their behaviour. It was also alleged that on 09.10.2011, panchayati was convened and accused persons were directed to keep her properly. It was alleged that even then in-laws continue to torture her. It was further alleged that the accused-Rahimuddin committed rape upon her. It was also alleged that on 18.08.2014, all accused persons assaulted the complainant and sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and tried to kill her, but on intervention of the neighbours, she was saved. It was also alleged that the accused persons snatched her ornaments and children and in the night, she was ousted from the house alongwith her younger son. Thereafter, she went to her sister's house and then went to her Naihar at Giridih and filed this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire family members have been made accused in the case, arising under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner nos. 4, 6 and 7 are brothers-in-law and petitioner no.5 is the cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2. He further submits that the petitioner divorced the opposite party no.2 on 20.08.2014 and she has also recognized the same. The said agreement is annexed at Annexure-2. He submits that on the next date i.e. 21.08.2014, the present complaint case has been filed. He further submits that only general and omnibus allegations are there. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that the learned Court has taken cognizance looking into the averments made in the complaint petition.
7. Although the case has been registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is an admitted position aathat on 20.08.2014, Tlqwas made by the petitioner upon opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure-2 and on the very next day i.e. on 21.08.2014, the present complaint case has been filed. Looking into the complaint petition, it appears that there are only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner, who happened to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and cousin father-in-law of opposite party no.2.
8. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentio
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
General and omnibus allegations under Section 498-A of IPC without specific instances do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings.
General allegations without specific roles do not justify criminal proceedings under Section 498A, preventing abuse of process of law.
Cognizance under Section 498A IPC requires specific allegations against accused; general allegations against distant relatives are insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the need for circumspection in proceeding against the accused.
Vague and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal charges under Section 498-A IPC; specific allegations are required to prevent abuse of legal process.
Only relatives of the husband can be charged under Section 498-A IPC, necessitating strict interpretation of the law.
The Court can interfere at the trial stage if the allegations are general and omnibus, and there is nothing in the law restricting the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of proce....
The court emphasized that general allegations in dowry cases against relatives can lead to misuse of law, necessitating specificity to avoid wrongful prosecution under Section 498-A IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.