RAHUL KANT RAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1913 of 2014 including the order dated 11.2.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2-A. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner is the husband of the complainant (opposite party No. 2), there is no specific allegation attributed against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in fact the complainant had already given a declaration with respect to giving of divorce to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that even after such declaration, the petitioner is still ready and willing to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour. It has also been submitted that so far as the complaint petition is concerned, all the allegations, alleged to have been place, relate to Kulti (West Bengal), whereas the complaint petition has been filed at Dhanbad Civil Court, which is lacking jurisdiction to try this case. In such circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner. From the complaint petition itself, it is revealed that on account of coercion the declaration for divorce was given by the complainant. It also reveals from the complaint petition that although some of the incident had been taken place at Kulti, West Bengal, but an incident with respect to demanding dowry from the parents of the complainant had taken place at her parental house within the District of Dhanbad. Moreover, the declaration upon which reliance was placed by the petitioner, seems to be on account of pressure created by the petitioner, which would be evident from a perusal of the complaint petition itself.