CHHAYA RANI BOSE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 93 of 2010 including the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners. The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition is that the complainant got married with the son of the petitioner no. 1 on 12.3.2005. In the marriage, several articles were given but the accused persons were not satisfied with it and hence, after the marriage demanded more money in cash. Later on, they put forth demand of Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant's father as they wanted to purchase a house at Purulia. When such demand was not fulfilled, the complainant was abused and assaulted by her husband (since died). Unfortunately, husband of the complainant died on 7.5.2005, who was working at West Bokaro Colliery, for whose death, the complainant was being blamed and abused. After the death of her husband, she was being subjected to physical and mental torture and ultimately on 12.6.2005, she was driven out of the house. Thereupon, she started living with her parents. Meanwhile, when her father demanded back the gift given to the complainant's marriage, the accused persons refused to return the same. On such complaint, cognizance was taken of the offences as aforesaid which is under challenge.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that earlier for the same cause of action, C.P. Case No. 711 of 2005 had been filed at Ranchi in which cognizance was taken on 18.4.2006 for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Since that order was without jurisdiction it was challenged before this Court and this Court quashed the order taking cognizance. However, liberty was granted to the complainant to file complaint petition at Hazaribagh. Accordingly, same was filed with a malicious intention to cause undue harassment to the petitioners and for wreaking vengeance.

(3.) It was further submitted that after the complainant got married with the son of the petitioner no. 1, she started creating problem, as a result of which, there had been quarrel in between the deceased and the opposite party no. 2 (complainant). Being fed up with the behaviour of the opposite party no. 2, who was also having illicit relation with someone, husband of the complainant committed suicide on 7.5.2005. Thereafter father of opposite party no. 2 alongwith some other persons came to the resident of petitioner no. 1 and threatened her to return the ornaments which the petitioner no. 1 under fear, handed over all the ornaments. In spite of that, parents and other relative of opposite party no. 2 started giving threatening to the petitioner no. 1 and others for impleading them in false case and under this situation, a proceeding was initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which proceeding opposite party no. 2 and other relatives were directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety each for keeping peace for one year. That order was challenged before the appellate court but the appeal got dismissed. It was also pointed out that apart from that a complaint case was lodged in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh against the opposite party no. 2 and others which was sent for institution and investigation of the same and accordingly, it was registered as Mandu P.S. Case No. 269 of 2005 under Sections 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 9.7.2005. On coming to know about the institution of the case and as the opposite party no. 2 and others had been bound down in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the instant prosecution has been lodged against the petitioner which can be said to have been lodged with ulterior purpose for wreaking vengeance and if a proceeding has been lodged with malice, it is fit to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Baijnath Jha vs. Sita Ram and Another, 2008 8 SCC 77.