MANJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 21.9.2007, passed by Sri A.K. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. C-1-1250/2007 by which the Court found a prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and summons were directed to be issued against them. The Petitioners further requested for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said complaint case.

(2.) Short facts of the case as narrated in Complaint Case No. C-4-1250/2007 filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Rakhee Singh is that she was married to the Petitioner No. 1 Manjit Kumar Singh on 27.6.2004 at Patna in the house of Sri H.C. Singh related to Manjit Kumar Singh and after the marriage, she was taken to Jamui where her matrimonial home was situated. At the time of her engagement, Rs. 2,00,000/- was given in cash and the father of the complainant promised to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- and one Alto car before the Tilak ceremony of the groom, but later on her father agreed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and it was paid to the father of the groom before the marriage. Misery of the complainant started after two days of her marriage when she was brought to her matrimonial home where all the members of her matrimonial home stopped talking to her and even no meal was offered to her. On query, her husband explained that the members of his family were annoyed with her because TV, Fridge, Washing Machine and other articles were not given by way of presentation on the eve of her marriage. She tried to explain that her father had already spent Rs. 15,00,000/- on her marriage whereupon her husband Manjit Kumar Singh slapped and abused her and other accused persons also assaulted and abused asking her to return back to her father's home. She informed and her father immediately came to Jamui, who was also ill-treated at the hands of the accused. The father of the complainant could be agreed to meet out their demands. The complainant then proceeded to Delhi with the consent of her husband and her father had given Rs. 70,000/- for purchasing household articles. In the month of January, 2006 her husband's uncle came to Delhi with four other persons for his treatment and on that occasion also, her husband who was there asked the complainant to contact her father to send Rs. 20,000/- for his treatment, to which she refused to do so whereupon she was assaulted by her husband Manjit Kumar Singh, Mona Singh and Hemant Kumar Singh with fists and blows. She was locked in a room for several hours and she was released only when she agreed to ask her Mausa to come to Delhi with a draft of Rs. 10,000/-. In the meantime, she conceived and her husband was advised by his sister Mona Singh for her abortion, if her father was not ready to take her back to his house till delivery. The complainant declined for abortion. In the meantime, she became seriously ill and then she was taken to Jamui i.e. her matrimonial home by her husband and his brother Sanjit Suman against her will without treatment After some time, she was again taken back to Delhi and on 4th May while she was preparing her last paper for examination, a ticket was handed over by Sanjit Suman to her for Jamshedpur and when she refused to go back to Jamshedpur, she was again assaulted and forcibly she was taken by her husband to Jamshedpur on 3.8.2006 where he stayed for three days and during such stay he insisted her to ask her father to transfer his Flat No. 306 situated at Rakesh Tower in his name, to which she denied, whereupon her husband got furiated and suddenly retumed back to Delhi asking the complainant never to come to him unless her father agreed to transfer the said flat in his name. On 28.9.2006, a son was born to the complainant and the news was given to her husband and other members of the family but neither any one came to Jamshedpur nor any message was sent to her. Her father went to Jamui and requested the father-in-law of his daughter to take her back at her matrimonial home but the father-in-law severed relationship by saying that his son did not want to live with her any more and that he refused to return the ornaments/jewelleries of the complainant, which were kept in the Bank locker. Persuasion was made by the father of the complainant to his son-in-law to settle the matter, to which he proposed that his flat should be transferred in the name of the son of the complainant or to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- for the composition of a case related to a motor accident claim in which he was an accused and a person died in a motor accident at his instance. The father of the complainant retumed back without any settlement and in this manner, the Petitioners committed offence under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as alleged in the complaint petition.

(3.) Mr. P. P.N. Roy, the learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that he was not inclined to press the petition of the Petitioner No. 1 Manjit Kumar Singh i.e. the husband of the complainant and wanted to withdraw his petition for quashment however, with the liberty to agitate the matter before the competent court: at the appropriate stage for his discharge. The prayer is allowed with such liberty.