Provision of Section 498A of IPC in matrimonial matters and increase in implicating the relatives of Husband are being Misused by Wife- Jharkhand High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2012

1. Umesh Kumar

2. Deepti Srivastava

3. G.C. Sinha (Gopal Chandra Sinha)

4. Archna Sinha                                                                                                                                                                                       … Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Monika Srivastava                                                                                                                                                                              … Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

12/06.07.2023

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 29.09.2011 passed in connection with P.C.R. No.123 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.

3. The complaint case was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with one Piyush Srivastava on 19.02.1999 at Jhanshi (U.P.) and after her marriage, she along with her husband was living peaceful conjugal life for several years, but suddenly the behaviour of her husband changed towards her and he used to quarrel with her on flimsy ground and some time, he used to assault her with fists and slaps. The reason behind such behaviour of her husband was cleared when he demanded a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs for giving her decent living in his house. The complainant's family members already paid Rs.2,50,000/- on his demand and at the time of her marriage, her family members had also given her golden ornaments of 25 Bhari.

It was further alleged that other accused persons always visited Sahibganj alongwith others and instigated him to demand that amount from her family and in the event of refusal to pay that amount they even told him to divorce her by legal process. They lastly visited Sahibganj on 11.04.2010.

The complainant and her family members tried their level best to reconciliate the matter, but other accused persons always instigated her husband to cut-off all relation with her and even divorce her and on the basis of this statement, P.C.R. Case No.123 of 2010 was registered.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court has earlier taken cognizance only against the husband of the complainant vide order dated 08.09.2010. He further submits that the said order was challenged by opposite party no.2 in Cr. Revision No.71 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge by way of setting aside the said order, remanded the matter to the learned court for deciding the same afresh.

He also submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned, they are brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant, who are residing at Lucknow. He further submits that general and omnibus allegations are there against the petitioners and the learned court has taken cognizance, that too on remand order of the learned Sessions Judge.

He further submits that the learned court was not having any option as the learned revisional court has directed to pass a fresh order after observing that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.

On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners and learned trial court has erred in taking cognizance only against the petitioners and therefore that order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, which was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter was remanded back for deciding afresh and, thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. He submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation and finds that so far as these petitioners are concerned, only general and omnibus allegations are there and in spite of that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. What are the nature of torture made by these petitioners, has not been disclosed in the complaint petition as well as in the solemn affirmation. The learned court has taken cognizance against the husband of opposite party no.2 only vide order dated 08.09.2010 and only after remand of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned court has further taken cognizance against all the accused made in the complaint petition.

7. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, however, nowadays, the said Sections is being misused which has been observed by several High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the relatives are unnecessarily made accused under the said Section, that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another; [(2014) 8 SCC 273].

8. How the case are lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at the heat of the moment, that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand & another; [(2010) 7 SCC 667] . Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

Read More