1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1858 of 2018 --------- Sarita Kumari Soren, aged about 32 years, daughter of Sri Patwari Soren, resident of Ravindra Nagar Phase-2 Tagore Hill Road, Morabadi P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-Bariatu, Distt.-Ranchi ..… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Sanjiv Kumar Besra, son of Late Rasik Besra, resident of Village-Ahlak Dumaria, P.O. & P.S.-Jama, District Dumka 3.Pushpa Besra, wife of Sri Manoj Kisku, resident of Matri Ashram, Chiriyakhana, Tarbagan, Court Road, Jamtara, P.O. P.S. & District-Jamtara ….. Opp. Parties ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 & 3 : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate ---------- ORAL ORDER IN THE COURT 10/16.01.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the ‘Order’ dated 28.09.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 355 of 2017, by which the learned Court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. only against O.P. No.2 only and had not taken cognizance against the O.P.No.3. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned 2 A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for O.P.No.2 and O.P.No 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that part of the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that learned Court below has not taken into consideration the statement on Solemn Affirmation of the Complainant and also statement of the Enquiry Witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and has not taken cognizance under Section 504, 323, 494/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against O.P. No.2 and has not proceeded at all against O.P.No.3, although O.P. No.3 is the ‘Nanad’ of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has performed marriage with one Stepha Terese Murmu and thus, the Court below has not proceeded in accordance with law and hence, the part of the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 may be set aside and the learned Trial Court may be directed to proceed against O.P. No.2 by taking cognizance for other offences also, i.e. the offences under Section 504, 323, 494/34 of I.P.C., and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also and the Learned Court below may further take cognizance under Sections 504, 323, 494/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the O.P. No.3 3 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the impugned order is fit and proper and no interference is required. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 & O.P. No.3 has opposed the submission of the petitioner and has denied the factum of second marriage of the O.P. No. 2 with one Stefi Teresa Murmu. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 that the allegation of demand of dowry and for ousting the complainant are false and concocted. It is further submitted that even the Complainant has stated during her Solemn Affirmation that she has terminated her marriage with the O.P. No.2 on 06.08.2015 as per Santhal customs. It is submitted that the police had submitted Final Form in the F.I.R. bearing Dumka P.S. Case No. 265 of 2013 against the O.P. No. 2- Husband and O.P.No.3. However, on protest petition filed by the Complainant-petitioner, learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the O.P. No.2- Husband and hence, this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and from going through the records of this case, 4 it appears that initially the petitioner had instituted Dumka (Town) P.S. Case No. 265 of 2013 for the offences under Section 504/323/498-A/494/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her Husband-O.P.No.2, namely Sanjeev Kumar Besra and O.P. No.3, namely Pushpa Besra, i.e. the married ‘Nanad’ of the present petitioner. 7. It appears that the police had submitted Final Form in the said Dumka P.S. Case No. 265 of 2013 against the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 respectively. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Protest Petition giving rise to Complaint Case No. 355 of 2017, in which the Complainant and her witnesses were examined. 9. It appears that the learned Court below, after considering the evidence on record, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. only against O.P.No.2, namely Sanjeev Kumar Besra and has not summoned O.P.No.3, namely Pushpa Besra, who is the married‘Nanad’ of the Complainant-Petitioner. 10. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the sister, brother and relatives of the Husband should not be harassed in the case of matrimonial disputes. 11. On perusal of the records and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the discretion exercised by the learned Court below is not to be interfered at this stage. This Court is 5 not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Court below by proceeding not against O.P.No.3, who is the Nanad of the complainant-Petitioner 12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 at Para No.s 15, 16, 18 and 19 as follows: “Para 15:- The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, Respondent 2 complainant has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder brother of the complainant's ex-husband. The facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-laws' house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as to how they could be implicated in the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra, including his parents. Para 16:- Under the facts and circumstances of a similar nature in Ramesh v. State of T.N. [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] , SCC (Cri.) at p. 738, allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the in- laws, husband's brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the FIR and investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the Court of the IIIrd 6 Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13-2-2002. Four of the appellant-accused were arrested and released on bail by the Magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in the complaint case on the file of the IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the petitioners were all subject-matters to be heard by the trial court for better appreciation after conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that it was only desirable to dismiss the original criminal petition and the same was also dismissed. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants. Para 18:- Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. Para 19:- Insofar as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the 7 proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 CrPC wherein it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction insofar as the consideration of the case of the appellants is concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant's husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of process of court.” 13. It has been held in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 at para 13, 14, 15 and 17 as follows:- “Para 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” Para 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) 8 “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 9 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” Para 15:- In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” Para 17:- The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances -17- expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498- 10 A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Mishra v. State of M.P., (2023) 15 SCC 480, in Para No.s 23 and 24 as follows:- “Para 23:- In a decision of recent vintage, this Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar [Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 684] , after considering various precedents, held that the rejection of the prayer for quashing the criminal case against the in-laws of the complainant wife therein was unjustified. The appeal was allowed by quashing the FIR against those appellants in the said case. The Court, while granting relief, observed as under : (SCC p. 608, para 21) “21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) Para 24:- We are in agreement with the view aforesaid. In the present case, the facts are akin to the position that obtained in Kahkashan Kausar [Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 : (2022) 2 11 SCC (Cri) 684] . In light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.” 15. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that in a case of matrimonial dispute, married ‘Nanad’ of the complainant may not be dragged into unnecessarily. So far as other offences against the O.P. No.2 are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to take an appropriate step at an appropriate stage of trial if so advised for proceeding against the O.P. No.2. 16. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the with the discretion exercised by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, while passing the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 in the said Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 355 of 2017. 17. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application No. 1858 of 2018 is dismissed with the observation made above. 18. However, the complainant-petitioner will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law at an appropriate stage. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 16.01.2025 N.A.F.R./s.m.