UMA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the order dated 06.12.2010 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Boakro after enquiry under Section 202 found a prima facie case against the Petitioners Uma Shankar Singh, Ganesh Singh, Smt. Asha Devi and Jitan Kunwar under Section 498A I.P.C. whereas prima facie offence under Section 323 prima facie was attracted against the Petitioners Chandan Kumar and Suraj Kumar in Complaint Case No. 357 of 2010. The Petitioners have further requested for quashment of their entire criminal proceedings pending before Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-O.P. No. 2 Anita Devi was married to the Petitioner Uma Shankar Singh at Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro on 27.06.2007 and that on the eve of their marriage, her father had given Rs. 1,51,000/- (One lakh fifty one thousand) in cash besides, Hero Honda Motorcycle, jewelleries and furniture etc. as gifts. As the father of her husband was not alive so the brother of the husband i.e. the Petitioner No. 2 herein entered into negotiation. The complainant went to her 'Sasural' at Doranda, Ranchi and after 1/2 months she returned back to her parental home at Bokaro. It was alleged that on 04.08.2007 her husband with his elder brother Ganesh Singh and his two nephews Chandan Kumar and Suraj Kumar came to her parental home at Doranda and put demand of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) in cash and many other items being dowry in lieu of her 'Bidai' but the father of the complainant after difficulty could be able to arrange and pay Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) only for her well being so that she may be accepted with all dignity and humility at her matrimonial home. But the amount so given was invested by the husband in the land dispute and he did not purchase the articles he had demanded and accepted in lieu of her Bidai for purchasing household articles. Thereafter, the elder brother of the husband namely Ganesh Singh and his wife Asha Devi put further demand of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) by asking the father of the complainant on telephone to which her father expressed inability due to his financial constraints. Lastly, the complainant with her father returned to her matrimonial home Doranda at Ranchi and there attempt was made to settle the matter amicably but the accused did not allow her to enter into her matrimonial home and finding No. way out for redressal she went to Doranda Police Station and with the intervention of Doranda Police she was allowed to stay at her in-laws house. She was misbehaved there and kicked out and then her husband took a house on rent to settle with the complainant. Her husband again put his demand for Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) to which the father of the complainant paid the said amount for purchasing the household articles. She was then taken to Shekhpura their ancestral house where she was ill-treated by her in-laws and with the intervention of the local police, her husband again took her back with the assurance to maintain her with all respect and humility. However, illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) was again raised by the accused persons to which the complainant informed her father, who came there and took her to Bokaro on 10.04.2010 where she informed the matter to the Police Station but she was advised to file a complaint case and hence the Complaint, Petition No. 357 of 2010.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr. Mazumdar at the outset submitted that the entire allegations are false and concocted and it would be evident from the plain reading of the complaint petition that the complainant herself was aggressive at both the places viz. Doranda and Shekhpura and invited intervention of police against her in-laws as she was not willing to associate herself with the in-laws and for that reason her husband Petitioner No. 1 had taken a house on rent at Ranchi where she was kept so that peace could be restored in the family. The learned Judicial Magistrate on erroneous consideration and without appreciation of evidence found a prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against all the Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and separate offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the Petitioner Nos. 5 & 6, who were none but the sons of the elder brother of her husband, not at all concerned with the affairs of their uncle and aunt. The complainant failed to substantiate by filing any injury report on the record in support of any injury sustained at the hands of the Petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 for the alleged offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against them.