Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Megha Khandelwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2068 of 2017
1. Smt. Megha Khandelwal, wife of Sri Rajat Khandelwal, daughter of Sri P.D.
Gupta, resident of Ram Niketan, B-16, New Colony, behind Chandni Chowk, Kalwar
Road, P.O. and P.S. Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012, State of Rajasthan
2. Piyush Gupta, son of Sri P.D. Gupta, resident of Ram Niketan, B-16, New
Colony, behind Chandni Chowk, Kalwar Road, P.O. and P.S. Jhotwara, Jaipur-
302012, State of Rajasthan ...... Petitioners
Versus
...............
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajat Kandelwal, son of Sri D.N. Khandelwal, resident of Flat No. 5, New Township, Noamundi, P.O. and P.S. Noamundi, 833217, District Singhbhum West.
...... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr., Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
.......
06/Dated: 21/04/2022
1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.06.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 103/2016 by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 323, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 103/2016, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa.
3. O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein as under:-
" The complainant has stated in the complaint petition that he is employed with M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and is working at Noamundi, West Singhbhum.
The Complainant has further said in the complaint that marriage of the complainant was solemnized according to Hindu Vedic rites at Jaipur, Rajasthan on 17th February, 2012 and thereafter, they began leading their conjugal life together at Noamundi, district Singhbhum West.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the 2 parents and brother of the accused no. 1 in the complaint petition (petitioner no.1 herein) who were residing in Jaipur, Rajasthan use to interfere in the marriage of the complaint and instigate the accused no. 1 to demand money from her husband and give it to them. The complainant was then constantly pressurized and harassed by the accused no. 1 for money and she quarrel with him and often turn violent and hit him, if her demands were not accepted.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that on several occasions she abused him and beat him even in front of friends and relatives, often humiliating him deliberately in front of others. She has also denied him any physical contact unless he gave her the money as and when demanded by her. The accused no. 2 who is the brother of the accused no. 1 was always manipulating her to demand money from the complainant and hand it to him.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that soon after his marriage, the accused no.2 had come to visit him in Noamundi on 13.10.2012 and he asked the complainant for money. The accused no. 1 and 2 had made fun of him and mocked him all the time and they quarreled with him and the accused no. 2 took Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant and left on 15.10.2012.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that immediately after one month, the accused no. 1 informed her husband that she had to attend an interview in Delhi and she asked him to take her to Jamshedpur where her elder sister's father-in-law came to pick her up on 19.11.2012. After that she went to her father's house at Jaipur and refused to return to Noamundi. It was only after mediation between friends and well wishers that she agreed to come to live with the complainant at Noamundi on 26.03.2013.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the parents, elder sister's husband of the accused no.1 had come to visit them at 3 Noamundi in July, 2013. The complainant often heard her advising her daughter that she must learn to control him as quickly as possible so that he would not dare to deny her anything. On the day before they were leaving for Jaipur the accused no. 1 demanded Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant. He did not have the money at hand and the accused no. 1 began to scream at him and hurled abuses saying that he had no respect for her relatives. Her mother and sister also came rushing into the room and warned the complainant that if he did not accept her demands then they would be forced to complain against him and his parents to the police, being emboldened by their support the accused no. 1 slapped him many times while they looked on. The complainant was extremely scared and he arranged for the money and gave her Rs. 30,000/- the next day itself. Immediately the accused no. 1 handed the money to her mother and asked her to buy Sarees and gifts for herself and others.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that every four or five months or so the accused no. 2 also come to visit his sister and ask her for money on some pretext or the other and she in turn instruct the complainant to give him the money and if he dared to deny then threatened to implicate him and his entire family in criminal cases. That after the complainant accepted their demands, the accused no.1 would then be very happy and leave him in peace. As the accused no. 1 was not at all inclined to do household work so the complaint had even hired a cook and maid to do all the work and to make his wife happy.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that when the complainant had ensured his matrimonial peace by accepting the demands of her parents, sister and brother, the accused no. 1 was kind towards him and thus in that period he had a reasonably peaceful conjugal life with her and around January, 2014 she informed him that she had conceived. The complainant was very happy to hear the news and provided her with the best medical care in the beset hospitals in 4 Noamundi and Jamshedpur and later took her to Jaipur a few months before her delivery where his parents took care of her and on 14th September, 2014 she delivered a baby girl. The complainant and his parents ensured that she was provided the best care post delivery too.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused no. 1 came back to Noamundi with their baby after 5-6 months. However, now she was even more hostile and arrogant with him then before and began to pressurize him to transfer his entire salary in her name and when he avoided doing so she became very abusive and violent towards him. He even realized that she had been buying gifts for her family without his knowledge.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that it was only after few months of marriage that the complainant came to know that the accused no. 2 was a drunkard and was always under heavy gambling debts. The accused no. 2 was constantly manipulating his sister and pressurizing her for money. Even the parents of the accused no. 1 and 2 were well aware of this and were in fact, supporting the accused no. 2 whenever he demanded money from his sister knowing fully that she would coerce the complainant into giving her the money.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was thus harassed by the accused nos. 1 and 2 in this way for more than three years and finally on Saturday, 6th February, 2016 the accused no. 2 suddenly arrived at Noamundi at the Complainant's house around 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon. He informed the complainant that he was in urgent need of Rs. 5,00,000/- to meet some urgent expenses and asked him to lend him the money. The complainant was fed up by now and he refused to hand over the money to finance his bad habits. Hearing this accused no. 1 was extremely enraged and she started yelling and screaming at him. However, the complainant refused to accept their demands this time. Then the accused no. 1 and 2 began assaulting him 5 and slapping him and threatened to make false complaint against him before the local police or to kill him there itself and said that they would make it look like suicide and no one would even suspect them. The complainant was alarmed and he handed over Rs. 25,000/- only, which he had in his almirah. The accused no. 2 then left early the next morning warning him to have the rest of the money ready within a week or he would not hesitate to carry out his threat.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was shocked to find his alimirah locker was open and all the ornaments were missing in the morning. He realized that after the incident the night before, the accused no. 1 and 2 had stolen all the jewellery which included one gold chain, two gold rings, one gold kada, a pair Jhumka and gold bracelet worth approx. Rs. 2,50,000/- and the accused no. 2 take them with him when he left the house that morning. The complainant was so shaken up and realized that if he confronted his wife about the same his life might be under threat as he had no way of knowing if the accused no. 2 had indeed left Noamamundi or not. So instead he quietly arranged for his leave and immediately booked flight tickets for him and the accused no. 1 for Jaipur and on 25 th February, 2016 they reached Jaipur where he dropped his wife at her father's house saying that he would come to pick her up but later came back to Noamundi.
It is further alleged in the complainant petition that on the return the complainant went to the local police with his complaint stating that the accused nos. 1 and 2 had stolen his valuable from his house and that he feared for his life and personal security, which was under severe threat from them, however the police kept his written complaint and said they would investigate and do the needful, they however advised him to sort out the matter through discussions as it was a family matter but till date no action has been taken.6
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that however, the accused no. 1 and 2 continued to call up the complainant and also threatened him vis e-mail, whatsapp and phone etc, even their sister, Ritu called him and has threatened to file case against him and his parents if he did not accept their demands.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant being thus aggrieved by the deliberate and dishonest acts of the accused nos. 1 and 2 who have committed the serious offences of theft, extortion by putting him in fear for his life and use of criminal force to voluntarily causing hurt having common intention has approached the court with his complaint praying for justice.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that immediate cause of action against the accused nos. 1 and 2 in the present case arose on and from 6th February, 2016 when they used criminal force against him and intentionally and dishonestly put him in fear for his life and personal safety and thus induced him to deliver Rs. 25,000/- in cash and thereafter they dishonestly removed all the valuable and ornaments from his possession without his knowledge or consent for their own wrongful gain and thereafter continue to intimidate him threatening him to implicate him and this parents in false case if their demands are not met.
It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons ought to be prosecuted and tried for their criminal offences punishable under sections 323, 379, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code."
4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assailed the cognizance order as well as entire criminal proceeding on the ground that in the Solemn Affirmation, the O.P. No. 2 has stated that after the alleged occurrence i.e. on 06.02.2016, he has taken his wife-petitioner no.1 at Jaipur on 25.02.2016 and left her there. He further submits that in view of statement in Solemn Affirmation if the petitioner no. 1 was at Jaipur there was no occasion to file the complaint alleging 7 therein theft against petitioner no. 1. He further submits that the case is malafide against the petitioner. He further submits that no ingredient of sections 323, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 filed divorce petition which was subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the case to the competent Court at Jaipur and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaipur now decided the divorce case and passing the judgement, the learned Family Court has discussed that the witnesses have not supported the case and divorce petition filed by the O.P. No. 2 has been dismissed. He further submits that this complaint is malafide petition against the petitioners filed by the husband who is O.P. No.2. To buttress his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment in the case of "Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala & Another" reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 wherein para 20 and 24 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"20. The Court observed as follows in para 102: (Bhajan Lal case, SCC pp. 378-79) "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 8 where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
24. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., SCC at pp. 747-48 has observed as under: (SCC para 12) "12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi14, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) 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 proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."
5. Relying on the aforesaid judgement, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is fit to be quashed if it is filed on malicious and absurd allegation. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition is fit to be allowed.
6. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the ingredient of sections in view of allegation made in complaint petition are made out against the petitioners. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance on 13.06.2017 looking into complaint petition, Solemn Affirmation 9 and statement of enquiry witnesses. He further submits that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court there was undertaking by the parties that criminal cases filed by the parties as well as petition filed before the Family Court shall be decided expeditiously. He further submits that 498A case has been lodged against the O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner no.1 after lodging of this complaint case which is counter blast case. On these grounds, he submits that what are the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, are subject matter of the trial.
7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record. Looking into Solemn Affirmation, it transpires that O.P. No.2 has stated that on 25.02.2016 he has taken petitioner no. 1 to Jaipur and left her and the complaint has been filed alleging therein theft and assault made by the petitioners. The complaint has been filed on 21.06.2016.
8. Looking to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and looking to the Solemn Affirmation, it transpires that in the Solemn Affirmation, there is nothing contradictory to the complaint petition. In the Solemn Affirmation the complainant has disclosed the occurrence as 06.02.2016 and on 25.02.2016 he has taken the petitioner no. 1 to Jaipur and left her there. Thus submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to non- presence of the petitioner no. 1 on the date of occurrence is not true. The learned Magistrate after looking into Solemn Affirmation as well as statement of enquiry witnesses has taken cognizance under sections 323, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There are materials on record to suggest the occurrence that has taken place. What are the evidences adduced by the remaining enquiry witnesses are not before this Court. This Court is not in a position to appreciate the evidences of the enquiry witnesses. Mens rea this is subject matter of trial. The wife has filed F.I.R. against the O.P. No. 2 under section 498A I.P.C. and another case has been filed by the wife under Domestic Violence Act. The judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not in dispute. The High Court is competent to quash the proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that case has been filed maliciously and malifide. In the case in hand that judgment is not helping the petitioner. Reference 10 may be made to the case of "State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522 wherein para 8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]"
9. Keeping in view the principles of law as enumerated here-in-above, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not fit to be allowed.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/