AYUSHMAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 6-10-2010 passed by the SDJM Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 772 of 2010 by which preliminary objection raised on the point of maintainability by the petitioner accused.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short as per the complaint petition filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 on 6-5-2010 in the Court of CJM Ranchi under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was that she was a Muslim woman by faith whereas the petitioner Ayushman Pandey was a Brahmin(Hindu) and both solemnized love marriage on 8-12- 2008 itself before the Marriage Officer under the Act XLIII of 1954 at Neturis Block, Purulia(West Bengal), to which a certificate of marriage was granted to both spouse. It was alleged that the husband-petitioner started torturing since the very day of marriage over telephone and in person in connivance with his relatives and coerced her as well as her father to deliver Rs. Twenty lakhs to enable him to set up his own consultancy service. THE father of the complainant was holding a senior managerial post in the State Bank of India. She alleged that her father was picked up from the bank in which he was working at Ramgarh and was put under confinement illegally at Jamshedpur by putting pressure to impress upon the complainant to agree for annulment of marriage for the reasons that the parents of Ayushman Pandey had selected another girl of their own caste which could fetch a sum of Rs. One crore as dowry. THE petitioner was compelled to leave Jamshedpur where she was undergoing internship at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, and was keen to get employment in the said hospital as a House Surgeon. Humiliation, insults and threats to cause hurt continued to the complainant by the accused petitioner. It was further stated that such threats were made every day in person or telephone till 31st March, 2009 when he left for Singapore to work and to pursue higher studies at S.P. Jain Centre for management. THE petitioner failed to take care of the complainant, misutilized his position and had been constantly inflicting mental and physical abuses on the complainant and thereby he committed an offence as described under Section 3 of the Act, as such liable for punishment. She claimed relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act, particularly for monetary relief, residence and protection as also compensation. She further requested that interim ex parte relief may be granted to her under the provision of Section 23 of the Act.

(3.) RAISING the point of law Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel submitted that the learned SDJM failed to appreciate that the complaint case would be maintainable only if it could reflect a prima facie case in favour of the complainant that she was an aggrieved person in domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent and fulfilled the requirement of 'shared household'. The petition was rejected merely on the ground of pendency of matrimonial title suit and existence of the marriage certificate which did not draw inference to presume that in the given allegation, an offence could be made out under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As a matter of fact, the complainant could not be stated to be an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of the d Act as she never lived with the petitioner-husband in domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) or in a shared household as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act, as such, complaint of the complainant was liable to be rejected on the point of maintainability . Mr. Anil Kumar further asserted that it would be evident from perusal of the complaint petition and domestic incident report that neither the marriage of the complainant with the respondent was solemnized according to the customary rites nor the same was consummated at any point of time as the respondent-husband had deserted the complainant soon after registration of the marriage on 8-12-2008 which was registered by playing fraud .The certificate of the marriage was obtained from Purulia district where none of the parties ordinarily resided, an essential ingredient under the provision of Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act.