SAROJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the applications were heard together, as the parties are same and even the issues involved in these cases are same and are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) ONE Rashmi Jain having married Anil Jain started living her in-law' place at Danapur, Patna. In course of time, relationship in between them seems to have become quite bitter. Thereupon, the father of Rashmi Jain lodged a case at Danapur Police Station alleging therein that her daughter is being subjected to torture by her husband, husband's elder brother-Bishnu Hari Jain and elder brother's wife-Saroj Jain on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. On such allegation, a case was registered as Danapur P.S. Case No. 543 of 2000 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. While the matter was under investigation, Rashmi Jain lodged a case at Katras Police Station putting more or less same allegation of subjection to torture by her husband and other family members on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On such allegation, Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001 was lodged on 28.1.2001 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, husband's elder brother-Bishnu Hari Jain and elder brother's wife-Saroj Jain. Upon lodgment of the said case, Cr.W.J.C. No. 47 of 2001 was filed for quashing of said Katras P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001 on the ground that on the same set of allegation earlier Danapur P.S. Case No. 543 of 2000 had been filed on 14.3.2001 and as such, two F.I.Rs. on the same set of allegation cannot be maintained. However, Rashmi Jain also filed a complaint case bearing C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 in the court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad on the same allegation of subjection her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband and other family members. On such allegation, a case was registered as C.P. Case No. 1 of 2001 upon which cognizance of the offences was taken on 25.4.2001 against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 1348 of 2003 for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. No. 1 of 2001 including the order taking cognizance on the ground that for the same set of allegation upon which complaint was lodged and the cognizance has been taken, case has been lodged at two places; one at Katras Police Station and the other at Danapur Police Station. Under these circumstances, both the cases were heard together.