Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 30 July, 2013
Author: Jaya Roy
Bench: Jaya Roy
[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 1437 of 2012
-----
Manish Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Priyanka Deo ..... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Petitioner :
Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar , Advocate.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D. Chandra Ghosh., Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
-----
C.A.V. ON: 26.06.2013 PRONOUNCED ON: 30/07/2013
-----
Jaya Roy,J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned
counsel for the Opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner has filed this application for modification of the
order dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.B.A. No. 2608 of 2011 whereby
this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit an Account Payee
Demand Draft amounting to Rs.7 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs) in the
name of the complainant of this case in the Court below and return all
the articles come under 'Stree-dhan' to the complainant, and surrender
before the court below within the aforesaid period. If the petitioner
deposits an Account Payee Demand Draft of the said amount, returns
all the aforesaid articles and surrenders before the court below within
the aforesaid period, the trial court below will release him on bail on
furnishing bail bonds etc. The counsel of the petitioner prays for
modification of the aforesaid order and grant reasonable and suitable
time for amicable settlement and disolve the entire disputes and
furnishing bail bonds in the concerned court below for ends of justice.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the
aforesaid order, the petitioner deposited a draft of Rs. 7 Lakhs vide
D.D. No. 122735 of S.B.I. in the name of the opposite party no.2
namely Priyanka Deo along with her Stree-dhan with a list specifically
stating therein, the name of the articles, on 26.03.2012 in the
concerned Court below and to support of his contention a photo copy
of the certified copy of the details D.D. and list of 'Stree-dhan' articles
is annexed and marked as Annexure-1 in this petition.
4. It is further argued by the counsel of the petitioner that the
opposite party no. 2 complainant filed an application before the court
below stating therein that she has received the Demand Draft but most
2 Cr. M. P. No. 1437 of 2012
of the articles are mentioned in the list of the articles and has not been
returned, only about 10% of the articles are not mentioned in the list
and those articles have been returned and the majority of the articles
are still lying with the petitioner. The court below after hearing both the
parties by its order dated 26.03.2012 passed the following order:-
"Under such facts and circumstances I think
that the final compromise did not took place.
Hence the permission petition of the accused
petitioner is not granted."
5. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for
modification of the aforesaid order passed in A.B.A. No. 2608 of 2011
by this court.
6. The opposite party no.2 has appeared through her counsel and
he submitted that though the opposite party has received a sum of
Rs.7 lakhs through demand draft as stated earlier but she has not
received the entire articles which come under the 'Stree-dhan' and only
few articles have been handed over to her by the petitioner. Therefore,
the petitioner has not complied the direction given by this Court by the
aforesaid order passed in A.B.A. No. 2608 of 2011.
7. From the record, I find that as the counsel appearing for both
the parties, have submitted that the parties are ready to compromise
the matter and the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs and
return her all her Stree-dhan, in view of the said submissions this court
passed the following order on 31.01.2012:-
"Counsel appearing for both the parties have
submitted that the parties are ready to compromise
the matter as the petitioner is ready to pay the
complainant a sum of Rupees 7 Lakhs (Rupees
Seven Lakhs ) and to return her all her Stree-dhan
within a period of two months from the date of this
order.
As both the counsel have consented to these
conditions, I direct the petitioner to deposit an
Account Payee Demand Draft amounting to Rs. 7
Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs in the name of the
complainant of this case in the court below and
return all the articles come under Stee-dhan to the
complainant, and surrrender before the court below
within the aforesaid period. If the petitioner deposits
an Account Payee Demand Draft of the said
amount, returns all the aforesaid articles and
surrenders before the court below within the
aforesaid period, the trial court/ court below is
directed to release the petitioner namely Manish
3 Cr. M. P. No. 1437 of 2012
Kumar on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) , with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of the court
below/Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur, in
connection with C/1 Case No. 417 of 2011, subject
to the conditions that both the bailors will be local
resident having immovable property within
jurisdiction of district concerned and subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The trial court/court below is directed to hand
over said Account Payee Demand Draft to
complainant after proper verification of the identity of
the complainant of this case.
After the compliance of the aforesaid direction
by the petitioner, the complainant will withdraw her
complaint petition.
With the aforesaid directions, this application
stands disposed of.
8. Admittedly the complainant opposite party have received a sum
of Rs. 7 lakhs and few articles from the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, he has given the entire articles of the complainant which
her parents given her at the time of marriage but the complainant's
plea is that she has received only few articles and majority of her
articles which are her 'Stree-dhan' are still lying with the petitioner. It is
not possible for this court decide this matter as to whether the
petitioner has given the entire articles of the complainant to her or not.
It is question of fact and it cannot be decided only on the basis of the
affidavits filed by both the parties before this court in this application.
9. Therefore, I direct the court below to decide this fact whether the
petitioner has already given the entire articles to the complainant or still
few are left with him, by taking oral and documentary evidence of both
the parties and thereafter pass an order according to the order dated
31.01.2012passed in A.B.A. No. 2608 of 2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and till the court below pass any order, the police will no arrest the petitioner in connection with C/1 Case No. 417 of 2011 pending in the court of Sri B.B. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.
10. With this direction, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.
(Jaya Roy, J) Anit