IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2773 of 2013

With

Cr.M.P. No. 2756 of 2013

---

Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra S/o Late Amir

Chandra Kalra R/o H.I.G. Plot No. – 93, Ratan Lal Nagar, P.O. –

Govind Nagar, P.S. + District – Kanpur (U.P.)

(Petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2773 of 2013)

Sunil Kalra S/o Late Amir Chandra Kalra R/o H.I.G. Plot No. – 93,

Ratan Lal Nagar, P.O. – Govind Nagar, P.S. + District – Kanpur (U.P.)

(Petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2756 of 2013)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Nilu Kalra W/o Sunil Kalra, R/o Devi Mandap Road, Jagdish

Enclave, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi

(Opp. Parties in both the cases)

---

CORAM

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate

For the Opp. Party

: Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P.

---

07/09.03.2016

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these

applications the same are being disposed of with this common order.

2.

In these applications, the petitioner have prayed for quashing of

the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.

1529 of 2010 including the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the

learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi by which cognizance was taken for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in

which it was alleged that the marriage of the complainant was

solemnized with Sunil Kalra (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2756 of 2013) on

08.12.1993. It has been alleged that the petitioners always demanded

Rs. 5,00,000/- from the father of the complainant and for which the

accused persons used to abuse and torture the complainant. Further

allegation has been made that on 04.07.2010 the accused-husband had

abused his wife and had also assaulted her as well as his daughter. On

17.08.2010 accused Sunil Kalra came to Ranchi and made a demand of

Rs. 2.5 lakh as a condition precedent for keeping the complainant and

her children with him. Inability on the part of the father of the

complainant made Sunil Kalra become aggressive and at the instance

-2-

of his brother Kamal Kumar Kalra @ Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra the

complainant and her children were assaulted.

4.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Complaint Case No. 1529 of

2010 was instituted.

5.

Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by

examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her

witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi on

15.01.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of the

Indian Penal Code.

6.

Heard Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P., for the State.

7.

Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, has submitted that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2756 of

2013 is the husband of the complainant whereas petitioner in Cr.M.P.

No. 2773 of 2013 is her brother-in-law. Learned counsel submits that

the entire allegations are false and frivolous and only with a view to

drag the petitioners in a criminal case false allegations have been

levelled in the complaint petition. It has been submitted that so far as

the brother-in-law of the complainant namely Kamal Kumar Kalra @

Kamal Kalra @ Bunty Kalra is concerned, no specific allegation has

been levelled against him and he has been implicated only because of

the fact that he is a family member of the husband of the complainant.

It has also been submitted that a maintenance proceeding under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also instituted by the complainant in which

there was a compromise and in terms of the compromise an amount of

Rs. Seven thousand per month is being paid by the husband to the

complainant. Submission has been advanced that the compromise