MAHANAND JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision is directed against the validity and legality of the impugned order passed by the SDJM, Godda in T.R. No. 589 of 2005 on 16.5.2005 whereby and whereunder the petition for the discharge of the petitioners under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case as it stood narrated by the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Vinita Jha in his written report presented before the Godda police was that she was married to Rajiv Kumar Jha son of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 on 11.7.1997 according to the Hindu rituals and after marriage she went to her matrimonial home at village Panjwara where she was terrorized and threatened to bring Rs. 1,50.000/ - from her parental home as she had carried nothing with her on the eve of marriage, lest her life would be made miserable. Her husband was posted as lecturer at Mahila College. Godda. She further alleged that when she conceived during her stay at matrimonial home, her -in -laws put pressure for abortion. She informed her father who was posted at Biharsharif in the Electricity Board and he came there, took her to Godda where a male child was born to her. After a great persuasion her husband took her away to Panjwara in the month of May. 2002 where he again started extending threat to commit her murder and finally she was taken to Godda against her will in the month of October and left there by extending threat that she would be accepted only when she would return with Rs. 1.5 lakhs lest, she would be eliminated. In the month of December, 2002 it was alleged that the petitioners came to Godda in absence of her father, abused in various manner and threatened her mother to return the informant with Rs. 1.5 lakhs otherwise she along with her son would be killed. On the basis of the written report, Godda P.S. Case No. 184 of 2003 was registered on 6.7.2003 for the offence under Section 498 -A. IPC against all the petitioners herein and the husband of the informant Rajiv Kumar Jha. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioners under Sections 498 -A/379. IPC as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Having been dissatisfied with the charge -sheet filed by the police, the petitioners preferred a petition under Section 239, CrPC for their discharge which was rejected by the learned SDJM, Godda and called upon the petitioners and another to stand charge in the alleged offence.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel with reference to the allegation and the occurrence which took place allegedly in the month of December, 2002 submitted that it was peculiar for such an occurrence if took place on the instance of the petitioners in Godda town, no information was given to the police for long 7 months. The informant was silent in the written report in respect of individual attribution of the petitioners in extending threat and using abusive languages against her and her mother. According to the police report the petitioner No. 4 Smt. Mettu Jha, a married sister of the husband of the informant used to live with her husband Mirtunjay Jha at Mumbai. Similarly, Smt. Rupa Jha another sister of the husband of the informant used to live with her husband Pramod Jha (Petitioner No. 5) at Patna. Petitioner No. 6 Pitambar Jha and Petitioner No. 7 Smt. Ranjana Jha are the uncle - in -law and aunt -in -law of the informant, not at all concerned with the family affairs of the informant. Similarly, the petitioner No. 1 Mahanand Jha is the father -in -law and the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Shanti Jha is the mother -in -law. The father -in -law is a retired ADM and at the relevant time he was a practicing lawyer at Katihar. He had produced pension book in which his address was given at Katihar. The specific defence with respect to the petitioner Smt. Meetu Jha was taken that at the relevant time of alleged occurrence she was under -going treatment at Mumbai under Dr. Mahesh Asher for her breast abscess and in support whereof prescriptions and pathological test reports were annexed, but surprisingly, her presence was shown by the informant at Godda. Finally, it was submitted that for the fault of the husband the entire relations of the husband cannot be implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 498 -A and 379, IPC.