Chattisgarh High Court
Deepmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:644
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1914 of 2023
1 - Deepmala Sahu W/o Puranlal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Newra, Post
Hasda, P.S. Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Vaishali Alias Kiran Sahu W/o Damodar Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o New
Mangal Market Near Sumit Bazar, Gudyari, District Raipur
(C.G.),...(Respondent/complainant)
3 – Damodar Sahu S/o Gopal Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tendua,
Police Station Amanaka, District – Raipur (C.G.)….(Co-Accused No. 1)
4 – Smt. Kanti Bai Sahu W/o Gopal Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Tendua, Police Station Amanaka, District – Raipur (C.G.), (Co-Accused No. 2)
5 – Gopal Ram Sahu S/o Late Firta Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village
Tendua, Police Station Amanaka, District – Raipur (C.G.), (Co-Accused No. 3)
—- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Avline Juneja Gambhir, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
___________________________________________________________
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,
Order on Board
06.01.2025
1. The present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may
2kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and may kindly
pleased to quash the criminal case No. 10314/2021 pending
before the court of JMFC Raipur (CG) in the interest of
justice”
2. Case of the prosecution, as per first information report is that the
complainant was regularly facing harassment and cruelty due to demand
of dowry and she was not taken care by her husband and his family
members during her ill health and she was restrained to go to her
parental house during major Hindu festivals. With the aforesaid
allegation, the FIR was lodged against husband, mother-in-law, father-
in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. The case was taken into
investigation and during the course of investigation, the police recorded
the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the complainant, her
mother, father, brother and sister. On the basis of allegation, charge-
sheet was submitted before the learned judicial magistrate. The brother-
in-law was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. All four
accused persons were granted bail by the learned court below and now
the matter is fixed for framing of charges before the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is
sister-in-law of the complainant got married in the year 2015 and She
was appointed as Sikha Karmi Grade-2 at Govt. School and posted at
District Bemetara. She is living with husband separately since her
marriage, therefore there is no possibility to give ill treatment to the
complainant by the petitioner and there is also no allegation of demand
of dowry and cruelty due to such demand against the present petitioner.
No offence under Section 498A IPC is made out as no role is attributed
by the petitioner in causing any kind of physical or mental harassment to
the complainant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal report in (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335)
whereby it has held that High Court can quash the Fir to protect the
accused from malicious prosecution.
4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of
3
the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Manoj Singh V.
State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRMP No. 2637/2019, whereby the
Division Bench has held in para 21 as under:-
21 In the matter of K. Subba Rao and others V. State of
Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home
and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 their Lordships of the
Supreme Court delineated the duty of the criminal Courts while
proceeding against relatives of victim’s husband and held that the
Court should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in
crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and
further held that relatives of husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their
involvement in offences are made out.
5. Learned State counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 would further submit that after due investigation the
petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-
facie material collected are sufficient to put the petitioner at trial. They
would further submit that taking into consideration the material available
on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the
petitioner is made out. They would also submit that jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is extremely limited as FIR and
charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient
evidence available on record to put the accused person to trial. They
would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
Hon’ble High Court in the matters of “State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan
Lal” reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Orissa & Ors.
Versus Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reproted in (2012) 4 SCC 547 and also
Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
reported in (2010) 6 SCC 243. In view of the abovementioned
judgments, the instant petition under Section 482 may not be
maintainable as no facts and grounds have been urged by the petitioner
warranting any interference by Hon’ble court. The instant petition
deserves to be dismissed being baseless and devoid of merits.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings
and prayers made in the petition and documents available on record.
7. It is admitted facts that written complaint was made by respondent No.2-
4
Vaishali Alias Kiran Sahu on 02.07.2021 in Police Station Raipur in
which it has been alleged that from the very beginning of the marriage,
the petitioner along with her husband and her in-laws have physically
and mentally tortured the complainant and assaulted her, hence, she has
left the house of the husband.
8. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that the allegation levelled against
the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC are general and
bald. There is also no dates and details of any incident has been
mentioned in the complainant. The petitioner is sister-in-law of the
complainant and she is married and relative of husband of the
complainant and is living separately at Bemetara. She is also working
woman and posted as Teacher at Government School. The incident took
place at Ama Naka Raipur. The main allegation against the husband,
mother-in-law and father-in-law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that the criminal Courts while proceeding against relatives of victim’s
husband should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in
crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry and relatives of
husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations,
unless specific instances of their involvement in offences are made out.
9. In view of above, so far as the petitioner is concerned, criminal
proceeding in criminal case No. 10314/2021 pending before the Court of
JMFC Raipur only against the present petitioner namely Deepmala Sahu
is set aside/quashed.
10. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed and disposed of.
11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the
concerned Court for necessary information and its compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
Digitally signed
by JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.01.20
16:50:52 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link