SHISHU BALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.3.2001, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 312, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and other co -accused persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant -opposite party No. 2. The prayer also includes an order for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the aforesaid order of cognizance, which is pending in the court of the learned Sri Ramjit Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 796 of 1999/1479/2000.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief is that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of one of the accused Baij Nath Kumbhakar. After solemnization of the marriage on 10.5.1996, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial house where she lived in the company of her husband, parents -in -law and brother -in -law besides sister -in -law. Soon after the marriage, the complainant began to be subjected to ill -treatment, cruelty and neglect by her husband and in -laws over demand for dowry and against which she had filed a complaint case bearing C.P. case No. 796 of 1999 in which cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken by the trial court. However, a compromise was effected between the spouses and pursuant to the compromise, a bond was executed by and between the parties on 26.2.2006, where -after conjugal relations were again resumed between the complainant and her husband and she began to live at her matrimonial house once again since 13.3.2000. During her sojourn in the company of her husband at her matrimonial house, she had conceived his child, bill this was not relished by her husband and in -laws, who began to subject her again to ill - treatment, cruelty and neglect and even physical assault, as a result of which, she sustained severe bleeding injuries. On her physical condition becoming serious, it was at the instance of the neighbouring residents that the complainant was admitted to the nursing home, but even at the nursing home, neither her husband nor any member of his family attended her. However, again on being pressurized by the neighbouring residents, the husband brought her back to his home on 20.9.2000, although her health condition had further deteriorated. On receiving information regarding the complainant 'sailing health condition, her father came to her matrimonial house and took her along with him on 23.9.2000 for her medical treatment and after medical check up, she was advised to take rest and undergo prescribed treatment. On being neglected by her husband and in -laws, the complainant 'sfather took her to his own house where she continued availing medical treatment under the doctors. Subsequently, on improvement of her health, the complainant filed an application before the trial court in the aforementioned complaint case on 10.11.2000 explaining in detail the conduct of the accused persons and the physical and mental torture which she had suffered at their hands and had prayed for cancellation of the bail granted earlier to the accused persons. However, the learned Magistrate while refusing to cancel bail, had observed that the complainant may file a fresh case for the fresh cause of action. The complainant filed thereafter her fresh complaint case which was registered vide C.P. Case No. 1479 of 2000 in which, after conducting inquiry under Sec.202 Cr. PC, the learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom the case was transferred by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, found a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 323, 312, 498A/34 Indian Penal Code against three accused persons including the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 16.3.2001, had directed issuance of summons against the accused persons.

(3.) MR . Mahesh Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in both complaints merely because she happens to be the mother -in -law of the complainant, even though, the allegations against her are not specific with reference to the date or particular conduct on the part of the petitioner which could invite a ground to proceed against her for the aforementioned offences. Elaborating further, the learned Counsel submits that the allegation of demand of dowry is totally vague inasmuch as no specific amount of demand has been stated, nor any specific article mentioned as part of the demand. Likewise, no specific date on which the complainant was subjected to any act of cruelty, either physical or mental by the present petitioner, has been mentioned.