Usha Devi and Others vs The State of Jharkhand

Jaya Roy, J.—Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 4.7.2008 / 5.7.2008 passed by Shri D.K. Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court VII, Ranchi, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C.

Facts of the case, in brief is that a case has been instituted on the basis of the Written report of the informant Anjali Kumari on 24.1.2006 stating therein that she was married with Chandreshwar Prasad, the petitioner No. 5 on 17.4.2003 according to the Hindu Rites and customs. Thereafter, the accused petitioners started torturing her as her father had given them less amount of Dowry. It is further alleged that the ornaments of rupees 50,000/- kept in her Almirah, given by the informant''s father to the informant, was taken by them. She has further stated that when she has conceived, all the accused persons administered medicine to her and result of which, her pregnancy was terminated. On the basis of this written report a case u/s 498A, 313/34 of the I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against all the accused petitioners.

Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the instant case was filed on 24.1.2006 as a counter blast of the matrimonial case being Matrimonial Title Suit (M.T.S.) No. 209/2005 filed onl2.12.2005 by the petitioner No. 5 Chandreshwar Prasad against his wife Anjali Kumari (the informant) for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. It is further contended that the relationship between the parties had became tense due to cruel behavior of the informant and it was not possible to live together as such on 12.12.2005 the aforesaid matrimonial suit was filed by the petitioner No. 5 before the Principle Judge Family Court, Ranchi u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The said suit was a admitted on 4.1.2006 and registered notice was issued to the informant which was posted on 18.1.2006. Thus, it is very clear that after receiving the said notice, the informant maliciously instituted the instant case as the counter blast of the aforesaid Matrimonial Title Suit.

It is further submitted that the date of occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. is from 22.4.2003 to August 2005 and the written report submitted for the same on 24.1.2006 after five months (approximately) of the alleged occurrence. Thus, this inordinate delay in filing the written report appears to be tainted with malafide intension.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the informant contended that there are sufficient facts in the F.I.R. to constitute an offence against the accused persons. Therefore the trial court has rightly rejected the petitioner''s application u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C.

I have perused the F.I.R. and the impugned order and I have heard the counsel of both the parties. It is manifestly clear from the F.I.R. itself that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 22.4.2003 till August 2005 whereas the F.I.R. was filed by the informant on 24.1.2006. Therefore, the informant had not even tried to lodged a case before the police immediately after the occurrence on the contrary she has filed the same after five months (approximately).

I have also noticed that the accused petitioner No. 5 the husband of the informant has filed a Matrimonial Case for divorce on the ground of cruelty in December 2005 much earlier of the instant Criminal Case. This also shows the malafide intention of the informant.

The counsel of the petitioners placed reliance on the case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, in which it has been held that if the Complaint case filed, after the husband has filed divorce petition then it is clear from the fact the Criminal case has been filed after wards with malafide intension and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and as such the proceeding is liable to quashed. In the instant case it appear that the Criminal case has been filed much after filing of the Matrimonial Suit by the accused petitioner No. 5 for seeking divorce against the informant. Thus it is clear the informant has filed the instant Criminal case with malafide intension and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused persons and with a view to spite due to private and personal grudge. Therefore the case in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.

In this view of the matter, the Revision application is allowed and the order dated 4.7.2008 / 5.7.2008 passed by Shri D.K. Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court VII Ranchi, rejecting the petitioners application filed u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, set aside.