Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi @ Sarita Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 977 of 2024
1. Sarita Devi @ Sarita Kumari, aged about 54 years, wife of
Sunil Yadav
2. Isha Yadav, aged about 18 years, daughter of Sunil Yadav
3. Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav, aged about 49 years, son
of Jugeshwar Yadav
No. 1 to 3 are residents of Qr. No. 443 B Tupe, Railway
Colony, Barkakana, P.O.-Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, Dist.-
Ramgarh
4. Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar Gope, aged about 60 years, son of
Jugeshwar Yadav, resident of Barari Tola Hurhuri,
Thakurgaon, Khatiyatand, Ratu, P.O. & P.S.-Ratu, Dist.-
Ranchi
5. Amrit Yadav @ Amrit Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of late
Tilak Mahto, resident of BOCM, Churi Purvi, Khalari, Ray,
P.O.-Khalari, P.S.-Khalari, Dist.-Ranchi
6. Bhuneshwar Gope, aged about 60 years, son of Janki Gope,
resident of Choudhary Tola, Bodiya Dakshini, Kathana, P.O.
& P.S.-Kathana, Dist.-Bokaro
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rekha Kumari, daughter of late Suresh Yadav and wife of
Sanjay Yadav, resident of Chhatabad No.5, Katras, P.O. & P.S.-
Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines III
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
…..
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
1
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer
to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 493, 494, 496, 420, 406, 120B
and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being
the relatives of the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav got the marriage of
the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav solemnized with the informant
suppressing the material fact that co-accused-Sanjay Yadav was
earlier married to Usha Kumari and at the time of purported
marriage of Sanjay Yadav with the informant, the marriage of
Sanjay Yadav and Usha Kumari was subsisting.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by
drawing attention of this Court to the FIR, that admittedly the
petitioners are residing at places different than that of the co-
accused-Sanjay Yadav; as the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav resides in
Panchwati Apartment at Ramgarh, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 are
residing at Railway Colony, Barkakana, the petitioner no.4 resides
at Ratu in the District of Ranchi, the petitioner no.5 resides at
Khelari in the District of Ranchi and petitioner no.6 resides at
Kathara in the District of Bokaro.
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
2
5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that therein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.11 relied upon its
judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of
Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and observed that when the
relative of the husband are not residing in the same house where
the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration
by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person
falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose
of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code but should also consider
whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version
solely to implicate such persons to pressurize the main accused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 and submits that in
paragraph no.25 thereof it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, that a mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations, indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud, as it is well recognized
fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency
to implicate all the members of the husband’s family, when
domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Learned
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
3
counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta &
Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667
and submits that in paragraph no.32, it has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is a matter of common
experience that most of the complaints under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment, over trivial
issues without proper deliberations. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs. State of
Telangana & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 wherein
it has been observed that mere general allegation of harassment,
without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators,
would not suffice, to constitute the offences.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that there is an unexplained delay of six months in institution of
the case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that even if the entire allegations are considered to be
true in its entirety, still, none of the offences for which the FIR has
been registered is made out against the petitioners. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the main
allegation is against the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav who is not the
petitioner before this Court and only to pressurize the main
accused, the petitioners have been implicated because they are the
relative of the co-accused, even though they have no overt role
played in the commission of the alleged offences. It is also
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
4
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioner no.2 -Isha Yadav was a child in conflict with law, at the
time of alleged offences. It is then submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the informant was knowing pretty
well that the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav has divorced his ex-wife-
Puja Kumari and Usha Kumari has also severed her matrimony
with the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav and Usha Kumari has already
married another person. It is next submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.6-Bhuneshwar Gope
is not a family member of Sanjay Yadav and he has been roped as
an accused, only because he was the mediator in the said marriage
of the co-accused with the informant. Hence, it is submitted that
the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer
as made by the petitioners in this writ petition. Learned counsel
for the respondent no.2 reliying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami &
Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1
submits that in paragraph no.27 it has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the power possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are
very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2
next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. &
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
5
Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that in paragraph
no. 12 (iv) of the said judgment, it has been laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged.
If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely
on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in
detail; the proceeding should not be quashed. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that
since the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code is not involved in the FIR; so the ratio of the judgments
relied upon the by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not
applicable to the facts of the case. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioners in
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons have committed
the offences as alleged in the FIR. Hence, it is submitted that this
writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under
Section 120B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law that for
completion of conspiracy though in general no overt act need to
be done in furtherance of the conspiracy; in terms of provision to
Section 120A of Indian Penal Code “some act” besides the
agreement is necessary to be done by one or more of the parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof, for the offence to be
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
6
completed as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Hasim vs. State of T.N. reported in (2005) 1
SCC 237.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against
the petitioners is that they demanded dowry of one four-wheeler
vehicle from the informant, after she went to her in-laws’ house,
after her marriage with the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav. There is also
allegation that the petitioners, even though they knew about the
subsistence of the earlier marriage of the co-accused- Sanjay
Yadav with Usha Kumari, they suppressed the same and made
the informant solemnize an illegal marriage with Sanjay Yadav
and has kept the jewelry and cash of the informant.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 493, 494 and 496
of Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same is obviously
attributed to the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav who is not the
petitioner before this Court. There is no specific allegation against
any of the petitioners that there was an agreement between the
petitioners and the co-accused to commit the offence punishable
under Sections 493, 494 and 496 of Indian Penal Code. In the
absence of the same, by a general and omnibus allegation that the
petitioners had the knowledge about the subsequent marriage of
Sanjay Yadav with Usha Kumari at the time of Sanjay Yadav
solemnizing marriage with the informant, in the considered
opinion of this Court is not sufficient to constitute the offence
punishable under Sections 493, 494 and 496 of Indian Penal Code
even with the aid of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
7
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of India Penal
Code is concerned, the same relates to cheating and thereby
inducing any person to part with any property.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of cheating or inducing any person so
cheated to part with any property etc. Under such circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire
allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true
in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code is not made out.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the same requires inter alia two essential
ingredients, one is entrustment of the property and the second is
dishonest misappropriation of the same.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, at best it can be said that
there is entrustment of the property of the jewelry and cash which
the victim took at the time of her purported marriage with the co-
accused-Sanjay Yadav to the petitioners but there is no allegation
of any dishonest misappropriation of the same by the petitioners.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal
Code is not made out against the petitioners; even if the entire
allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their
entirety, even with the aid of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.
16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the same provides punishment for
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
8
criminal intimidation. To constitute criminal intimidation , inter
alia the essential ingredients are that the accused must threaten
another with an injury to his person, reputation or property of
himself or anyone in whom the person is interested with intent to
cause alarm to that person or to cause to that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do etc.
17. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of threatening to cause any
injury to the person reputation or property of the informant or
anyone else in whom the informant is interested and in the
absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered
to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under
Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, the same provides for
punishment for giving or taking dowry.
19. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation of taking of
dowry is against the co-accused-Sanjay Yadav. There is no
allegation of either taking or giving dowry against the petitioners.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 is not made out even if the entire allegations against the
petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety.
20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, the same provides for
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
9
punishment for any person demanding directly or indirectly from
the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or a
bridegroom of any dowry.
21. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of directly or indirectly demanding any
dowry from the parents or guardian of the informant and in the
absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be
true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not made out.
22. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the petitioners in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244
of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case
where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 be quashed and
set aside qua the petitioners only.
23. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 is quashed and
set aside qua the petitioners only.
24. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent
only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd March, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
W.P. (Cr.) No.977 of 2024
10
[ad_1]
Source link