Devendra Kumar Alias Pawan Kumar Pandey ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 11 March, 2015
Learned counsel
for the petitioners has also referred to the case of Arjun Vs. State
of Jharkhand, reported in 2006 1 JCR 183 (Jhr), in which it was held
that where complaint case has been filed as a counter blast to
matrimonial case filed by the petitioners seeking divorce, it was
actuated with mala fide intention and order taking cognizance is
liable to be quashed. By citing the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the petitioners has argued that on issuance of notice in
the suit filed by the petitioner no. 1 for dissolution of marriage, the
complaint case was instituted. At this stage, it cannot be deciphered
as to whether the complaint case was a counter blast to the
matrimonial suit and the said issue is best left open at this stage. So
far as the allegations with respect to Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the same has been mentioned at paragraph 20 of
the complaint petition of an incident which occurred on 5.11.2011
relating to an accident with another vehicle. The said allegations on
the face of it seem to be highly absurd and improbable inasmuch as if
the petitioner no. 1 had the intention as highlighted by the
complainant-opposite party no. 2, he was himself at a greater risk to
suffer serious injuries, if he had dashed deliberately with his
motorcycle with another vehicle. Even otherwise, the said incident
had also taken place in the year 2011 whereas the complaint case
has been instituted in 2013 and there being no plausible explanation
with respect to the lodgment of the case after such a delay, the same
appears to be coloured with ill-motive and ill-intention. In such
circumstances also, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.