D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) ALL the seven petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 574 of 2005 wherein having been satisfied with the prima facie offence under Sections 498A/354/323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, processes were directed to be issued against the petitioners -accused.
(2.) THE short fact of the case as narrated in the complaint petition by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 Nutan Ekka was that her marriage was solemnized with one Simon Ekka at Prabhat Tara Catholic Church, Dhurwa and at that time her husband was posted as Superintendent in the Central Excise Department, Jamshedpur. After her marriage, she accompanied her husband to Jamshedpur where she lived at quarter No. 6/24 O.C. Road, South Park, Bishtupur, Jamshedpur and led a peacefully conjugal life for about one and half years. Thereafter, the complainant found that her husband was returning late in the night and that too under the influence of liquor with his friends, who again used to take liquor at the quarter when she was forced to serve them liquor again, abusive language to open the door but sensing foul she did not open the door inspite of their threat. Narrating the sequence of occurrence that On 30th October, 2004 at about 1 P.M. when she came to Jamshedpur from Ranch, all the eight named accused including the petitioners entered into her room by breaking open the door with the help of axe, pushed her down on the earth by holding her hair, abused, assaulted and compelled her to sign on the blank papers but she refused. However, on urge when she was allowed and accordingly she entered in the bath room, it was alleged that the petitioners Gabriel Kujur, Rajesh Kujur and Surender Sundi also by entering into the said bath room tried to outrage her modesty but she was saved by the witness Rajni Beck on her outcry. In the meantime, though two representatives of Saint Marry Church namely Rudolf Minz and Robin Ekka came there but they were not allowed to meet her. Yet, she managed to flee away from the place of occurrence and came to her uncle's house at Parudih and from there she went to her parental home at Ranchi. She expressed her desire and made several attempts to resume her conjugal life with her husband but she was threatened to be killed or would be sent to jail by false implication. She was consistently threatened by one Nirmala Toppo who asked her to desert her husband. She filed the complaint petition in the above situation. Mr. M.K. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned SDJM, Ranchi without appreciation of the provision of law took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners who are not at all related to the husband or her in laws nearly or remotely.
(3.) ADVANCING his arguments Mr. Dey submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Budhwa Oraon was a Police Inspector posted at Jamshedpur and the petitioner No. 2 Anjali Lakra, his wife, was also Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner No. 3 Surendra Sundi was a business man. The petitioner No. 4 Gabriel Tirkey, a bank employee posted at Bank of Baroda, Jamshedpur, petitioner No. 5 Rajesh Kujur, a Sub Inspector in Central Investigation Department and petitioner No. 6 Imilda Kujur @ Emelda Ekka, wife of the petitioner No. 5, was also Inspector of Police in Jharkhand Armed Force and petitioner No. 7 Roshan Dungdung was a complainant, Mr. Dey submitted that it was not practically possible that these petitioners could have ventured to do so in presence of their wives as per the complaint case. More so, the allegation was that they tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant and not that they actually outraged the modesty so as to attract an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned SDJM, on erroneous consideration, directed the processes to be issued against all the accused persons including the petitioners for the common offence under Section 354 of IPC though three of the accused were females i.e. wives of the petitioners No. 1, 3 and 5 which shows non application of judicial mind by the S.D.J.M. Ranchi while passing the impugned order dated 2.5.2006 under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;