Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Saukat Ali & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 May, 2014
Author: Jitendra Mohan Sharma
Bench: Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21646 of 2014
======================================================
1. Md. Saukat Ali son of late Subhan Miyan
2. Rabina Khatoon D/o Md. Saukat Ali
3. Ahmad Ali S/o Md. Saukat Ali
4. Saiyra Khatoon W/o Md. Saukat Ali,
All R/O Village-P.S.Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Jamshed, son of Md. Sadique, R/O Village- Mahuawa, P.S.
Piparahi, District- Sheohar
3. Nagma Parveen,D/o Md. Jamshed, W/o of Hazrat Ali, R/O village
Mahuawa, P.S.Piprahi, District- Sheohar.
.... .... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN
SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
2. 15-05-2014. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The instant application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi in Parsauni P.S.Case No.109 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, after perusal of the records, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The factual matrix of the aforesaid case as stated in the complaint petition of O.P.No.2, father of O.P.No.3, is that O.P.No.3 Nagma Parveen was married as per Muslim custom with Hazrat Ali alias Munna son of petitioner nos. 1 and 4 on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 2 28.10.2010 and the informant/complainant gave several house hold articles, ornaments worth Rs.3 lacs by way of gift, gave Rs.25000/- and gold ring to his son-in-law and then the daughter of the complainant went to her Sasural but after a week of stay, all the accused persons started demanding cash of Rs.50000/- and one motorcycle from O.P.No.3 which was refused due to which she was abused, assaulted and tortured by all the accused persons. The matter was reported by her to the informant and he brought back his daughter to his village. However, after several requests and persuasions in the month of June, 2012, the accused persons again brought O.P.No.3 in her in-laws house but again the same treatment was meted and she was not provided even food on so many days and she was being assaulted after closing her in a room. No telephonic talk was exchanged between the victim and her father (informant) for about three months and then on suspicion, the informant visited the house of the victim's in-laws on 15.8.2013, where he was informed that her daughter has fled away without any information resulting to the informant suspected that her daughter has either been killed for not fulfilling the demand of dowry or she has been trafficked, the informant went at Parsauni Police Station where he was advised to lodge the complaint case and accordingly, on 21.8.2013, the complaint case was lodged which was sent under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registering the case and investigation. During investigation, the victim girl was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 7.9.2013, wherein she stated that she lived happily in her in-laws house for two months with her husband Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 3 after the marriage but when her husband went to foreign country (Qatar) to earn livelihood, her mother-in-law (Petitioner No.4), father-in-law (Petitioner no.1), brother-in-law (Dewar- petitioner no.3,) and sister-in-law (Nanad- petitioner no.2) always used to abuse, assault and torture her for small and petty matters. She has further stated that her mother-in-law always used to assault her and they used to pressurize her to bring Rs.50000/- and motorcycle and when her husband returned from Qatrar, her mother-in-law used to give wrong advice to him and then he some times used to scold her but he is a good man and her mother-in-law, father-in-law brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to abuse, assault and torture her by demanding dowry.
The Investigating officer, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet as is evident from the order sheet dated 5.12.2013 vide Annexure-9 and after perusal of entire records, the impugned order has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, against the husband, cognizance has not been taken, from plain reading of the F.I.R, which is based on complaint petition, it reveals that there was allegation that the daughter of the informant might have been killed, so the case was registered under Section 304B and other allied sections of the I.P.C. read with section 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, but the victim girl Nagma Parveen is still alive, so on this ground alone, the impugned order ought not to have been passed, the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi has supervised the case on the direction of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 4 Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range and during supervision, the case has not been found true vide Annnexure-8. The petitioner no.1 has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi vide Annexure-4 stating that his entire family members are residing at Kathmandu in Nepal and are engaged in hotel business and the victim Nagma Parveen, in the absence of her husband, established illicit relationship with one Sudim Lal Mukhiya and fled away with him on 15.8.2013 after writing a letter that she is going to marry with Sudim Lal Mukhiya and accordingly, the Home Department, Govt. of Nepal, advertised regarding their missing through television and F.M. Radio and as the victim was residing in Nepal, so the court of Sitamarhi has got no jurisdiction to entertain the case and to pass the impugned order. Further, petitioner no.1 has also filed an application stating therein the entire thing before the Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range and, on his direction, the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, enquired the matter and found the case false vide Annexure-8 but without applying judicial mind, the impugned order has been passed and the present case has been lodged with malafide/vengeyance intention and to cause harm to the petitioners, which, if allowed to proceed, may be the abuse of process of the court. It is also submitted that the petitioner no.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.565/- for issuing missing notice vide Annexure-7. The court below has also got no jurisdiction.
On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos.19 and 24 of the decision of Hon'ble the apex court passed in Cr. Appeal No.1674 of 2012 in the case of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 5 Geeta Mehrotra and anr.-Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and anr. reported in 2013 (1) PLJR-10 (S.C.).
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that it has become practice of the in-laws to give false information to the authorities concerned after committing assault and torture to the victim to save the skin. In the present case, from the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C itself, it is manifest that the victim girl was being tortured by all the petitioners and she has named all the petitioners specifically in her statement alleging how all the petitioners abused, assaulted and tortured her when her husband had gone to Qatar to earn his livelihood. In the instant case, there is no casual reference of the names of the petitioners rather there is specific allegation, so the facts of the instant case being on different footing, the aforesaid ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable.
It has further been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that at this stage, the defence of the petitioners can not be considered. At the time of taking cognizance, the only thing is required as to whether there is sufficient materials against the petitioners to proceed further or not and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi, after finding sufficient materials against these petitioners, has passed the impugned order which does not require any interference of this Court.
Having bestowed my anxious considerations to the arguments urged at the bar, going through the F.I.R., statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., memo of application and its annexures, it is obvious that the informant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 6 set the law in motion by filing the complaint petition which was sent under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registering and investigating the case making suspicion that his daughter either has been killed for dowry or has been sold resulting the case was registered under section 304B and other allied sections of the I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but luckily, the victim was safe and on recovery, her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has specifically stated the names of all the petitioners alleging specific as well as general allegations against them regarding abuse, torture and assault committed upon her by them for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by way of cash of Rs.50000/- and motorcycle.
It is also manifest that in the instant case, the intention of the victim girl is not to implicate his husband and all the family members as she has stated that her husband is a good man and after instigation by her mother-in-law, some time, she used scolding. It is also apparent that their marriage was performed in the month of October, 2010 itself and from the statement of the victim, it reveals that she was being tortured, harassed and assaulted by these petitioners when her husband went to Qatar to earn livelihood.
Territorial jurisdiction can be decided on the basis of averments made in the F.I.R./complaint petition and not as per the submissions and wishes of the accused persons and further, at this stage, the defence of the petitioners can not be considered without going into trial. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful for them in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Here the facts Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 7 are on quite different footing as has already been stated above, the intention of the victim was not to implicate the husband and his entire family members rather she has specifically stated the names of these petitioners attributing specific allegation against them.
It would be relevant at this stage to take note of the observation of Hon'ble the apex court in para-24 of the aforesaid citation Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr (supra) which reads as follows:
"24.- However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21646 of 2014 (2) dt.15-05-2014 8 the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."
Learned A.P.P. has rightly submitted that in the instant case, the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not helpful. Annexures-3 to 8 annexed with the memo of application, can not be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. At this stage, the only thing required is to see as to whether there are sufficient materials against the petitioner/petitioners to proceed further or not. Learned court below after considering properly has passed the impugned order and there is no illegality.
In the result, finding no merit in the instant application, the same stands dismissed.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) ahk/-