SANGEETA KUMARI Vs. MUKUL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Appellant-Sangeeta Kumari against Mukul Prasad and State of Jharkhand wherein the impugned Judgment dtd. 22/12/2021 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 186 of 2019 allowed the Cr. Appeal and set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 16/9/2019 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 whereby the learned trial court had held guilty to the petitioner Mukul Prasad for the offence under Sec. 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced with imprisonment for one and half year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of fine, convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

(2.) The brief facts of the Complaint Case leading to this Appeal are that the complainant filed the complaint against Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad, Malti Devi, Pushpa and Dolly with these allegations that the complainant was married with Mukul Prasad on 6/6/2009 at Ranchi in which the complainant spent approximately Rs.8,00,000.00 including jewellery/stridhan of Rs.5,00,000.00. After the said marriage, accused persons took the complainant to the matrimonial house at Karai village, Police Station Karai, District-Nalanda (Bihar). From very first day at the matrimonial house the complainant was taunted and humiliated for bringing insufficient dowry and gifts for her-in-laws by the accused Mukul Prasad, Pushpa and Dolly particularly. Accused No.1 Mukul Prasad also taunted the complainant that the Car was not given to him by her parents. The complainant also came to know at her matrimonial house that her husband Mukul Prasad was working at Aligarh was not willing to continue his job there. Her husband was in habit of leaving jobs and he returned to Dhanbad or to his native village Karai. Her husband either on one pretext or the other created the situation in which the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home within four days from the marriage and came back to her parental house at Ranchi. The complainant while leaving the matrimonial home was not permitted to carry her stridhan. It was also assured by her husband that he would come in a day or two to bring her back to the matrimonial house at Dhanbad from Ranchi. The complainant had been waiting for her husband that he would come to take her back to the matrimonial house but he did not turn up and even did not give his contact number and his whereabouts was not known to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant herself joined one Barclays Shared Service Private Limited at Noida Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter on several occasion the accused No.4 and 5 Pushpa and Dolly both contacted her parents and brother for dowry. In February 2010 J.D. Prasad the father-in-law of the complainant contacted the father of complainant and asked to send the complainant to Dhanbad. The complainant applied for leave to go to Dhanbad since the leave was not granted to her by the employer, she was compelled to resign from her service. Thereafter the complainant informed her in-laws that she had returned to Ranchi and requested them to take her back to the matrimonial home; but the accused persons never took the complainant to the matrimonial home and demanded Rs.5,00,000.00 as dowry in addition as to what has been given at the time of marriage. The accused No.1 her husband persuaded her to come at Delhi so that the issue could be settled between them. He came Delhi on 31/8/2010 and insisted for the demand of Rs.5,00,000.00 and he left the house of the complainant without taking her with him. Thereafter the brother of the complainant contacted to her husband Mukul Prasad the entire conversation was recorded which the complainant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Court to produce as and when required. The husband of the complainant also filed a Mediation Petition No. 46 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre seeking the amicable settlement of matrimonial discords at pre-litigation stage. He sent one letter on 28/10/2010 to the brother of the complainant that he was coming to Ranchi by Shatabdi Express on 1/11/2010. Her husband came to her house at Ranchi on 1/11/2010 and again insisted the demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000.00 and also misbehaved and manhandled her with the parents of complainant. On account of this behaviour of the accused persons she was forced to resign her job, however, with all hopes that the complainant was shattered when she realized that her husband and other accused were not interested to take her back to her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of the demand of Rs.5,00,000.00. The intention of the accused to extract the money from the complainant for the said purpose he also sent several SMS to the complainant. In view of the above prayed to take cognizance against the accused persons for the offence made out of I.P.C. and to punish them.

(3.) On the said Complaint cognizance was taken by the courtbelow against the accused Mukul Prasad, J.D. Prasad and Malti Devi for the offence under Sec. 498A and 323 of I.P.C and of Dowry Prohibition Act.