Satyadeo Tiwari vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Learned counsel Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh submits that he is in receipt of Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari is not in a position to argue the matter because he is in panel of State counsel.

In view of the above, the said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State and Md. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2007 under Section 323, 379, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Complaint Case No.890 of 2006, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj.

The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that she was married with one Anil Tiwari five years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals and gave birth of two children. On instigation of the present petitioner (Satyadeo Tiwari) and Satyendra Tiwari, the husband of the complainant used to harass her. Four years ago, she was beaten and tried to be ousted from her matrimonial home resultantly a Panchayati was convened and pursuant thereto, the husband of the complainant allowed her to live in the house. On 30.09.2006, all the accused persons, named in the complaint assaulted the complainant, snatched the gold and silver ornaments kept in box worth Rs.25,000/- and apparels of Rs.25,000/-utensils of worth Rs.5,000/- and cash of Rs.2,500/- and ousted her from the matrimonial house, thereafter, the complainant along with her two sons went to her parental house (Maiyke) and she narrated the incident meted out to her. Further, allegation was that on 29.10.2006, all the accused persons came to her parental house and beaten her there also and demanded Rs.45,000/- and opened fire.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 323, 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the case and even he is not related with opposite party no.2 as well as with her husband, namely, Anil Tiwari. He also submits that in spite of that, he has been made accused. He further submits that now good sense has prevailed between the husband and wife and compromise has reached between them and they are residing together and joint compromise petition was filed before the learned court.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 fairly submits that the compromise is there and husband and wife are residing together and the petitioner is stranger to the family.

Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that the husband and wife have compromised the matter and the compromise petition is annexed at Annexure-4.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the solemn affirmation and finds that even in the solemn affirmation, the name of the petitioner, who is stranger to the family, has not been taken. Further the husband and wife have already compromised the matter and they are residing together, as has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2.

In view of the above facts and considering that the petitioner is stranger to the family and in the solemn affirmation, the complainant has not taken the name of this petitioner and the husband and wife have already compromised the matter and both are residing together and there is no chance of conviction of this petitioner, who is stranger to the family and also considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another; [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & another; [(2014) 6 SCC 466, the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2007 in connection with Complaint Case No.890 of 2006, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj are quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.