Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2020
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1938 of 2019
----
Sanjay Kumar ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Suman Kumari ... Opposite Parties
----
WITH
Cr. M.P. No. 1940 of 2019
----
Dr. Sanjay Kumar ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Suman Kumari ... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (In Person)
For the State: Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 17.08.2020 PRONOUNCED ON 01.12.2020 8/01.12.2020 The petitioner has argued in person. Though, on his request a
lawyer from the panel of Legal Services Authority was appointed to represent him in this case, yet, petitioner chose to argue in person. After the closure of argument through video conferencing, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a written notes of argument, pursuant to which, the petitioner has filed his written notes of argument through e-mail. The written notes of argument consists of a forwarding letter and 53 pages. The first page is the index, second page is an introduction of the petitioner. Third page is somewhat by way of sermon given by the petitioner. Page 4 to 53 is the written notes of argument with number of documents and reference of case laws. The documents annexed along with the written notes of argument, which are not part of the main criminal miscellaneous petition, cannot be looked into. The written notes of argument be kept on record and has been considered.
2. These two criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioner invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report registered against him in connection with Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 2 corresponding to G.R. No.6748 of 2013 for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He also prays to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
3. The second criminal miscellaneous petition is Cr. M.P. No.1940 of 2019, where prayer has been made to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 dated 12.05.2011 corresponding to G.R. No.831 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He also prays to stay the proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS OF CR. M.P. NO.1940 OF 2019 ARISING OUT OF TISRI POLICE STATION CASE NO.38 OF 2011 (G.R. NO.831 OF 2011)
4. This First Information Report was registered for offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was registered as Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 on 12.05.2011. Informant of this case is Suman Kumari, who happens to be the wife of this petitioner. In the First Information Report, it has been mentioned that she was married to this petitioner in the year 2007. After marriage, she started living in her matrimonial home. Things were normal for few months, but, thereafter the behaviour of the petitioner, towards her, started changing. This petitioner used to demand Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) and a car from the informant and her parents and was pressurizing her to bring the same. On showing inability, it is alleged that this petitioner used to mentally and physically torture the informant. It is mentioned that in the meantime, a son was born to the couple, but, the behaviour did not change. In October 2008, the informant, along with the child, was taken and kept in her parental home. Information about her well being was also not taken nor she was taken by the petitioner with him. Seeing no other alternative, father of the informant filed a petition before the community members. The community members arranged for a sitting, which was held on 08.11.2009. According to the advice of the elders, it is alleged that the petitioner had taken his wife to Delhi. It is alleged that for few days, she was kept properly, but, thereafter cruel behaviour started again. It is alleged that the informant and her infant son were kept in a rented house and this petitioner used to stay elsewhere. It is alleged that she used to be verbally abused and random threat was given that she will be divorced. In the meantime, the marriage of the 3 brother of the informant was fixed. It is alleged that this petitioner brought the informant to her parental house on 05.06.2010 and leaving her there, went to his village. It is alleged that he promised that he will return and will take back his wife after the marriage of her brother, but, he did not return. It is alleged that when she tried to contact him, petitioner used to give threat. It has been further mentioned in the First Information Report that on 27.06.2010, brother of this informant took this informant to Delhi, but, this petitioner prevented them to enter his house and demanded money. Seeing the attitude of the husband, the informant went to the nearest police station at Delhi where the police intervened. On the intervention of the police the petitioner kept the informant, but, after some days, again the torture started. As she was not being kept properly and there was consistent harassment, the informant informed the matter to her father and brother, who went to Delhi and brought her back on 07.09.2010. She stated that she was being tortured and the dowry was being demanded. This is the sum and substance of the First Information Report, which was registered on 12.05.2011.
5. After the First Information Report was registered, the police investigated the case and ultimately, filed the Final Report bearing No.71 of 2011 dated 31.08.2011 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a finding that the case is a mistake of fact. Thus, the petitioner was not chargesheeted. It is mentioned that on protest-cum-complaint filed by the informant-wife, the Court below took cognizance of offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From the documents, which have been filed along with the criminal miscellaneous petition, I find that the case proceeded and the depositions of the witnesses have also been recorded. This means that charge was also framed against the petitioner.
BRIEF FACTS OF CR. M.P. NO.1938 OF 2019 ARISING OUT OF BARIATU POLICE STATION CASE NO.429 OF 2013 (G.R. NO.6748 OF 2013)
6. This criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of a First Information Report lodged by the informant, who is the wife, being Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 dated 10.12.2013 for offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said First Information Report, the informant, who is the wife of the petitioner and also the informant in other case, has stated that she was married to the petitioner in the year 2007 and there is a five year old son. She states that she is 8 months 4 pregnant. She stated that her husband, i.e., the petitioner, on trivial issues abuses and tortures her. She states that she kept mum and faced the torture. She stated that she was physically assaulted also. She states that earlier also torture was meted out. Thus, she filed a case earlier, which is still pending. She states that Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) was always demanded from her. She states that this petitioner has also not allowed the informant to go to her parents' house. She states that the mother-in-law of this petitioner instigates this petitioner, as a result of which matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner and the informant.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER IN CR. MP NO. 1940 OF 2019
7. Petitioner has argued both the cases together. He submitted before this Court that he is a doctor and is a reputed person in the society and has never taken and asked for any dowry. At the time of marriage, he was in Delhi as a trainee doctor in AIIMS, New Delhi. The story of demand of dowry is nothing, but, a concocted story only to terrorise this petitioner. It has been argued that the informant was having an affair with someone, namely, Amit Kumar, who committed suicide in the year 2008. She was forcibly married to this petitioner and she was not happy with the marital life. It is stated that when he confronted the informant with the aforesaid fact, they become furious and threatened the petitioner to lodge a criminal case for which petitioner had already filed an informatory petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was numbered as Informatory Petition No.1930 of 2009. He submits that he being in the Government Job cannot even dream of demanding dowry and it is the informant, who have terrorized the petitioner. He stated that he is getting sufficient salary and allowances, thus, it cannot be conceived that he would have demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) and a vehicle as he himself can afford the same. He submits that in fact informant's brother used to reside with them. He further argues that the informant was forced to marry him and she was not happy with the marital life and her behaviour was aggressive and the family members interfered too much, which led to breakup of marriage. He submitted that the police did not find any material, so a final report was submitted as mistake of fact, but, the Court below took cognizance ignoring the provisions of law and several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that the Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance and has not considered all the relevant materials collected in 5 course of investigation. He submits that, in fact, both the husband and wife were living together and suppressing all these facts, false First Information Report has been lodged. He also submits that in deposition before the Court below, the informant has accepted that the petitioner used to take care of the informant during pregnancy and bore the entire cost of hospitalization and treatment. He submitted that the informant also acknowledged that the petitioner took her to Puri, Agra, Mussori, Banaras on family tour, which supports the case of the petitioner that there was no torture. He submits that the brother of the informant was also residing with the petitioner, was also accepted by the informant. He submits that in the entire deposition recorded at the stage of evidence, there is nothing to suggest that there was harassment by this petitioner. He submits that his brother-in-law in his evidence has also stated that he had not seen this petitioner inflicting injury or torturing the informant, thus, demolishing the prosecution case. He submits that the first information report is non-specific, no date of demand of dowry has been mentioned. He submitted that if the evidences are scrutinized properly, no offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is attracted. He submits that the trial is pending since long, which is causing harassment to the petitioner. He submits that allowing to continue this proceeding will amount to abuse of process of Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER IN CR. MP NO. 1938 OF 2019
8. In this case, the petitioner has reiterated his arguments, which has been recorded in the earlier case. In addition, he submits that since the already the above case is pending in Giridih, for the same cause of action and with similar allegations, the second First Information Report, which is registered for an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is bad. He further submitted that this case is nothing, but, by a counter blast of Bariatu Police Station Case No.428 of 2013, which has been filed by the petitioner against his brother-in-law, who brutally attacked him, as a result of which he sustained injury on his head and hand. Only in order to escape the rigors of the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner, this First Information Report has been filed by the informant.
WRITTEN NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
9. The said written notes of argument concerns both these criminal miscellaneous petitions, i.e., Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019 as well as Cr. M.P. 6 No.1940 of 2019. The main contention of the petitioner in his written notes of argument is that the informant has lodged two first information reports. The first one being Giridih Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 (G.R. No.831 of 2011), which is subject matter of challenge in Cr. M.P. No.1940 of 2019. He submits that the first information report being Giridih Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 is false and baseless as police, on behalf of the State had thoroughly investigated the matter and had also submitted final form in about four months as mistake of fact. The second first information report is Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 (G.R. No.6748 of 2013), which is under challenge in Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019. In both the first information reports the sections of Indian Penal Code is same which is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the nature of allegations is also similar, which is demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,00/- (Rupees Two Lakh) and a car since after 6 months to one year of marriage. He submits that the marriage had taken place on 29th January, 2007. He submits that in Maintenance Case No.232 of 2014, informant had alleged a separate story of demand by the petitioner of Rs.3 lakh and a car. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner used to have access of official car or reimbursement for car/taxi and the petitioner did not want the burden of car when his career was not settled in any one place. Once he got permanent job at Ranchi, in November 2012, he purchased his own car in March 2013. Moreover, petitioner is a man who loves self-respect, so he never like to ride a car given by anyone else. He submits that thus, the allegation of demand of car from in-laws is totally out of question. Regarding demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) or Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh), petitioner submits that the petitioner had the courage to obtain medical education that also from institute like Manipal or AIIMS New Delhi on his own level. Of course State Bank of India had financed Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) out of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) total required, as Education Loan to the petitioner for his medical education at Manipal, which the petitioner has repaid with full interest by 2012. Petitioner also got scholarship. Meanwhile petitioner also fully financed educational cost of his younger brother who is now an Administrative Officer in Life Insurance Corporation and also partially to his brother-in-law Dinesh Kumar, who is now Sub Inspector in CISF and also provided financial help to several other needy persons, so demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) from wife or her parents is totally against the petitioner's self respect and status. Thus, the allegation of demand of dowry was false and cooked up story only to make out the case of 498A, as 7 if dictated by any lawyer. He also submits that similar complaint was also made by the informant in Delhi in the year 2012, but, the Delhi Police, made a primary investigation on the same and found the allegations to be false and baseless and so did not register any FIR in Safdarjung Police Station in New Delhi. He submits that multiple FIRs and thereupon consequent multiple criminal proceedings by same informant against same accused with same allegation under same Sections of Indian Penal Code violates the fundamental principle of natural justice. He submits the Supreme Court has categorically said that facing criminal trial is no less than punishment. Also punishment must not be disproportionate. Maximum punishment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is 3 years, so subjecting the petitioner to criminal trial for 9 years is no way justified or reasonable. Petitioner submits that in none of the first information reports, there was allegation of any injury nor any such injury report was brought before the Trial Court during evidence. He submits that the First Information Report at Giridih in 2011 was first one and second First Information Report, which was at Ranchi, is in the year 2013, but marriage had taken place in 2007. He submits that the application given by the informant's father to Giridih Tailik Sahu Sabha for Panchayat which was held on 8th November, 2009 wherein, they have not mentioned any such demand of dowry or domestic violence. They had only mentioned that due to differences, his son-in-law (petitioner) had been reluctant to take his daughter (informant). Even during discussion in panchayat, which comprised of many dignified people of district including many lawyers and including lawyer Mr. Balgovind Sahu, who has been appointed lawyer of informant at Giridih in all cases till date, held on 8th November, 2009, no such allegation was made. Petitioner contends that the point to be noted here is that this panchayat was held on 8th November 2009, about 3 years after the marriage, whereas the informant had made allegation of demand of dowry in both First Information Reports saying dowry demand was made starting after few months or 6 months of marriage. Thus, the petitioner contends that the allegations in the First Information Reports appears to be false, malicious and baseless and afterthought, just to make out the case of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the petitioner that since he was apprehending danger of being falsely implicated in dowry related cases as his in-laws and the wife (informant) used to threaten him of sending to jail or spoil his career of doctor, if they did not follow their unruly behaviour or object to her violent behaviour or anything, so, the petitioner had submitted informatory application to learned Chief Judicial 8 Magistrate, Giridih on 16th September 2009 and subsequently to Superintendent of Police, Giridih on 6th June, 24th June, 2010 and 20th October 2013. The further contention of the petitioner is that the first information report being Giridih Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 is false and baseless as police, on behalf of the State had thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted final form in about four months as mistake of fact. It is contended by the petitioner that the said FIR was lodged in 2011 at Giridih which is the parental house of the petitioner, at the time when he was in job at AIIMS, Delhi and the informant was living at Mirzaganj, which is the parental house of the informant, which falls in Jamua Police Station of Giridih. It is contended by the petitioner that the informant was not living under the Tisri Police, thus, the said FIR lacks jurisdiction mandate. It is stated by the petitioner that while doing job at AIIMS from September 2010 to April 2011, petitioner had visited twice to his in-laws' house and also used to send money every month through money order or cash. Even police, after investigation, had submitted final form as Mistake of Fact while the informant was living with the petitioner in Delhi from July 2011 onwards, but on instigation and mischief of an unethical lawyer (as contended by the petitioner), who actually wanted to marry his daughter with the petitioner and was denied by the petitioner, the informant submitted protest petition. The Trial Judge gave two dates for hearing on protest petition, but the informant or her lawyer did not willfully appear. It is contended by the petitioner that the said case should have been closed there itself as the petitioner and the informant had compromised at the time of bail itself. Neither the petitioner was absconder nor did he move anticipatory bail. The informant/opposite parties also said on phone that if the petitioner takes the informant to Delhi, the informant will not pursue the case. So, the petitioner compromised his career and ambition and agreed to take the informant and keep her with him, but, the Trial Judge took cognizance and started the trial. The petitioner did not even went for discharge petition thinking that since the informant was living with the petitioner, so sooner or later Court case will close. It is contended by the petitioner that he was told by Judges at the time of bail also that if he takes the informant, then court case shall not proceed. So, the petitioner relied on such and was also totally unaware about the Court process as 2011-2012 was also the time for petitioner to get permanent job which was his priority too. It is stated that there were 9 prosecution witnesses including investigating officer, but 2 out of 9 witnesses could not be examined. Out of 7 witnesses 2 witnesses became hostile and only family members of the informant gave 9 evidence and all are hearsay witnesses. Even the investigating officer has not been examined and evidence got closed. By invoking 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed before the Trial Judge to call the investigating officer at his level, but the same was not done, which amounts to contempt of this Court vide order passed in B.A. No.4123 of 2013 (Hidayat Ansari versus State).
10. So far as the first information report being Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 is concerned, it is contended by the petitioner that on 10th December, 2013, he had gone to his official residence in RIMS Colony at lunch time just to bring some documents and files to attend an urgent meeting in RIMS Ranchi. After taking documents and files, when he was returning in hurry without taking lunch at about 2.45 p.m., just because petitioner had not taken lunch, informant became furious and started throwing house hold items and became too violent. Petitioner tried to calm her. Meanwhile, she called her father and brother to come there and kill him, otherwise they will see her dead. Petitioner got panicked and called 100 No. police and SSP, whereupon police came and enquired. After seeing the situation was not so serious and it got normalized, the police went away by counseling the informant to behave responsibly like wife of a government doctor. Seeing the situation of the house, though she was cooled by that time, yet the petitioner was apprehensive that if he goes to office leaving her alone, she may commit suicide, as attempted earlier. So, petitioner did not go to office and remained with the informant to counsel her and child also. Meanwhile at around 7 p.m. petitioner's brother-in- law, namely, Rupesh Kumar, who lives at Doranda, came to the house of the petitioner. Petitioner was sitting in bedroom floor besides the informant who was sleeping, holding her hands and the son was playing in house in other room. On getting call bell, son opened the door and immediately, on entering into the bedroom, brother-in-law threw helmet with high force on petitioner's head, which was reflected by his hand and helmet got broken into multiple pieces on hitting the wall. Thereafter the brother-in-law assaulted the petitioner on his bed and in bedroom. Some how, petitioner escaped from the house and reached to nearby police station to lodge complaint of attempt to murder and physical assault. Complaint was lodged as Bariatu Police Station Case No.428 of 2013 and petitioner was taken to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi for treatment and injury report was prepared. By the time, the petitioner returned from Sadar Hospital, petitioner noticed that his brother-in-law Rupesh Kumar was arrested. They started pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw the complaint 10 lodged by the petitioner. But, knowing the similar past incident, petitioner declined to withdraw his complaint. The brother-in-law tried to lodge a frivolous complaint, which the police did not lodge. However, the informant and her brother sitting together wrote the application on dictation from their lawyer Balgovind Sahu through phone, which was registered as Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013.
11. At pages 47 to 52, petitioner has referred to the judgments, viz. (i) State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335], (ii) Narinder Singh versus State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], (iii) Prashant Bharti versus State of NCT of Delhi [(2013) 9 SCC 293], (iv) Parbatbhai Ahir versus State of Gujarat, (v) Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, (vi) B.S. Joshi versus State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], (vii) Girish Pandey versus State, (viii) Geeta Mehrotra versus State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. It is contended by the petitioner that a false and frivolous First Information Reports are abusing process of law and wasting precious time of the petitioner as well as of Courts and also Trial Courts have been unable to conduct free and fair trial and even the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has failed to effectively supervise, monitor and control Trial Court Judges, these First Information Reports are fit to be quashed with setting aside entire criminal proceedings.
13. Notices were issued to the opposite party No.2, which was received by the father of the opposite party No.2.
14. I have heard the petitioner, who argued in person and learned counsel for the State.
15. In Cr. M.P. No.1940 of 2019, First Information Report of Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 is under challenge. Main defence of the petitioner is that the case has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner and the entire allegation levelled therein is absolutely false. In support of his contention, the petitioner has referred and has taken the Court through some of the evidences, which was recorded in G.R. No.831 of 2011 and G.R. No.6748 of 2013. G.R. No.831 of 2011 is the instant case, which I am dealing now, which corresponds to Cr. M.P. No.1940 of 2019. This recording of evidence in the aforesaid G.R. Case suggests that the Court had 11 already taken cognizance of the offence, also framed charge and has started recording evidence, so, the trial has proceeded much. At this stage, petitioner is seeking to quash the First Information Report. No doubt, a First Information Report can be quashed at any stage, provided that from bare perusal of the same, if no offence is made out. It is well settled proposition of law that when an offence prima facie is made out, a First Information Report cannot be quashed. Further, in this trial the Court has proceeded to record evidence and has recorded evidence of at least 5 (five) prosecution witnesses, after framing of charge. I find no material on record to suggest as to whether the petitioner has ever challenged the order taking cognizance or the order framing of charge. The fact remains that the case is now at the stage of evidence and evidence is being recorded. Now, when the case has already proceeded and the evidences are being recorded, this Court cannot take into consideration the deposition of witnesses for the purpose of quashing the First Information Report. The evidence can only be weighed and considered at the time of judgment to see whether the petitioner is guilty or not or there are no material against the accused. So far as the quashing of First Information Report is concerned, the only material, which is to be seen as to whether from perusal of the same, prima facie, an offence is made out or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj & Another versus K.P.S. Gill & Another, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194, Rajesh Bajaj versus State NCT of Delhi & Others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. versus Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269 has held that if prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.
16. Since this is a case of quashing of the First Information Report, this Court has only to see as to whether the statement made in the First Information Report makes out an offence or not. From the First Information Report, I find that there is an allegation of demand of dowry, assault and torture. These allegations, prima facie, make out an offence. As mentioned earlier, charge has already been framed in this case and the case is at the evidence stage. Since from the First Information Report, on its face value, an offence is made out, in view of the judgment referred to above, I find that this 12 is not a fit case where FIR can be quashed, moreso, when the trial is in progress. The judgments, which have been referred by the petitioner and have been referred above, at this stage and on facts, have got no relevance. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the grounds taken by the petitioner can only be appreciated after evaluating the evidence led by the parties and that can be done by the Trial Court and not by this Court, that too in a proceeding where a First Information Report is sought to be quashed.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid consideration, I find that this is not a fit case to quash the First Information Report. The petitioner is directed to approach the Court below and place his defence, which should be considered by the Court below in accordance with law, as already the Court below is recording the evidence. Thus, Cr. M.P. No.1940 of 2019 seeking quashing of First Information Report being Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.831 of 2011, is, hereby dismissed.
18. So far as Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019 is concerned, I find that the same relates to subsequent First Information Report being Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013, registered under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code alleging torture arising out of matrimonial dispute. The facts of this case are overlapping with the facts of Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011, which is apparent from perusal of both the First Information Reports. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181; and Babu Bhai versus State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, has held that for the self- same occurrence, two First Information Reports cannot be instituted. Prima facie, I find that on the self-same facts, both the First Information Reports have been registered, one being Tisri Police Station Case No.38 of 2011 and another being Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013. Further, this Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 has been filed only when the petitioner has filed a complaint against his brother-in-law.
19. Considering the aforesaid facts, since the opposite party No.2 has not appeared in this case, it would not be proper to dispose of this matter. On the proposition of law and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred above, this Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019 is admitted for hearing. Further proceeding in Bariatu Police Station Case No.429 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.6748 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned 13 Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, will remain stayed. Petitioner is directed to take fresh steps to issue notice to the opposite party No.2 by registered post with A/D. as also through ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within three weeks.
20. In view of the above, Cr. M.P. No.1938 of 2019 is admitted for hearing and Cr. M.P. No. 1940 of 2019 is dismissed.
21. Let copies of this order be communicated to the respective Courts concerned.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03