Jharkhand High Court
Md.Sayeed Anwar & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 11 May, 2016
Author: R.N.Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 336 of 2009
1.Md. Sayeed Anwar son of Hamid Ansari @ Abdul Hamid Ansari
2. Aziz Ansari s/o late Majid Ansari
3. Hamid @ Abdul Hamid Ansari s/o Majid Ansari
4. Munni @ Munni Khatoon w/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
5. Sajid @ Sajid Anwar @ Babu s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
6. Zakir Hussain @ Zakir Anwar @ Lala s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
7. Rayees Ansari @ Rayesh Anwar s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
8. Ruby Naaz@ Rubi Naz d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
9. Guria Praveen @ Guria d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
10. Soni w/o Imtiyaz Ansari
11. Ashraf Ansari s/o Samsul Ansari
12. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari s/o Khalil Ansari
13. Anjum Ara @ Anjum w/o Ashraf Ansari, all r/o village Chatabad, Bhandaridih
P.S Katras Dist. Dhanbad ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Hamida Khatoon @ Guriya Arshi d/o Md. Jasim Ansari and w/o Md. Sayeed
Anwar r/o village Rahmatganj, Pandarpala, P.S Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.) Dist.
Dhanbad ..... .... Opp. Parties
......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioners : M/sr. Gautam Kumar & Birat Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP.
For the O.P No. 2 : Mr. M.K, Laik, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate
......
CAV on- 11.09.2015 Pronounced on 11/05/2016
Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (in short " the Code"), the petitioners 13 in number have
prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 02.02.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in
C.P. Case No. 1397 of 2008.
2. The prosecution case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the
issue involved in this case, in short is that, at the instance of the complainant-
Hamid Khatoon @ Guriya Arshi, the aforesaid complaint case was filed against
the petitioners with the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with
petitioner no.1, Md. Sayeed Anwar on 22.11.2005 and after the marriage, she
remained in her Sasural for a month but, thereafter her husband and other in-laws
started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of their, she was subjected to
physical and mental torture. On 30.04.2008, the petitioners tried to set her on fire
by sprinkling kerosene oil, however, she could save herself and informed the
police station on 02.05.2008, but when no action was taken, this complaint case
was filed.
-2-
3. After examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and other
witnesses, the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and directed to issue summons for the appearance of the
petitioners.
4. It appears from the record that before filing of complaint case on
21.07.2008the opposite party no.2- the complainant had filed a Civil Misc. Case No. 9 of 2008 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 292 of the Mohamdan Law for recovery of Dower of Rs. 39,000/- on the ground that her husband has already given her Talaque and the court after issuance of notice to the present petitioner no.1 directed to pay the Dower amount of Rs. 39,000/- and also directed to return all the articles as per the list given by the complainant. Accordingly, Rs. 39,000/- was handed over to the complainant and an endorsement was made by the complainant on the order-sheet of the said case, which is enclosed as Annexure-3 with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The articles were also returned to the complainant of this case and the list of those articles with the signature of the complainant is enclosed as Annexure-4 with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Gautam appearing for the petitioners seriously contented that the continuance of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is bad in law, perverse and abuse of process of law. It was also submitted that the present proceeding is nothing except a vengeance to hurt the petitioners. Hence, continuance of this proceeding amounts to providing a forum to the complainant to settle earlier differences or to take revenge.
6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Laik learned Senior Advocate representing the complainant-opposite party no.2 submitted that at this stage, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed as the allegations made in the complaint petition relates to a period before filing of the petition in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court and even though the complainant had admitted the factum of Talaque given by the petitioner no.1 and acceptance of Dower amount and utensils, the petitioners cannot be absolved from criminality.
7. Apparently, after accepting the Dower amount and getting back all the utensils as demanded by the complainant, the present complaint case was filed with the allegation of period prior to filing of the petition under Section 292 of Mohamdan Law before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. It is not that the petitioner no.1, husband of the complainant, had filed a petition before a competent court for divorce, rather it was the complainant, who had filed the petition for recovery of the Dower amount and utensils, which were given to the petitioner no.1 during marriage. In a case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand -3- and another reported in 2004 CRI. L. J. 2989 while considering the similar situation, the court held that when a case was filed by husband for divorce then a complaint was filed and the court held that it is a motivated one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 held that the case filed by way of revenge should be quashed as the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court. In almost a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in the case M. Saravana Porselvi Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & Others; 2008 (3) East Cr. C 320 (SC) held that if it is a case of customary divorce, the question in regard to existence of good custom may have to be gone into in a civil proceeding. But Criminal prosecution shall not lie. It was initiated malafide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of Court.
8. In the above case also after divorce the party accepted the permanent alimony and thereafter filed a case under Section 498-A I.P.C almost similar to the instant case. The High Court in that case exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code had quashed the proceeding. Whereafter aggrieved party filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of High Court.
9. I find from the materials available on record that this complaint case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners after recovery of the Dower amount and articles through a competent court.
10. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The order 02.02.2009 by which cognizance of offence has been taken and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1397 of 2008 are, hereby, quashed.
(R.N.Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 11th May, 2016 Anjali/N.A.F.R.