Source: https://mynation.net/docs/17039-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:21:43+00:00

Document:
1. Asha Devi W/o Suresh Singh, Resident Of Muhalla, Katharibagh, P.S- Chapra(T) , Distt- Saran At Chapra.
2. Suresh Singh S/O Late Harinandan Singh, Resident Of Muhalla, Katharibagh, P.S- Chapra(T) , Distt- Saran At Chapra.
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kamaluddin, Adv.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the O.P. No. 2.
2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 18th April 2011 passed in T.R. No. 188 of 2011 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed and the case has been fixed for framing of charge.
3. It appears from the record that a Complaint petition, vide Complaint Case no. 3338 of 2008 was filed by one Priyanka Soni. The Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the ,Code?) sent the matter for investigation to the Police and later on the case was instituted as Chapra Mufassil P.S.Case no. 154 of 2008. In the complaint petition, the complainant has stated, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Manoranjan Prasad Singh, Indu Singh and Upendra Singh are accused persons claiming that Rakesh Kumar Singh is her husband, Manoranjan Prasad Singh is her father in-law, Indu Singh is her mother in-law. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that on 9th July 2008 the complainant had married with Rakesh Kumar Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals. It has been stated that her father had given Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs), ornament, clothes and articles. It has been alleged that the complainant at the time of Ruksadi, demanded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) and one Maruti car within one month, otherwise it may lead to bad consequence. The complainant went to her in-laws? place (Sasural) at Shakti Nagar where Rakesh Kumar Singh and the complainant lived as husband and wife. The marriage could not move smoothly as they were exerting pressure for money and Maruti car. When her father could know about the behaviour of husband and in-laws, he went and tried to assuage that they should not behave in such a way with his daughter but Rakesh Kumar Singh and Indu Singh caught hold her hair and all the four accused persons assaulted and asked her father to take away his daughter otherwise her dead body would go from the in-laws? place. It has been stated that on 10th October 2008 the accused persons forcefully expelled the complainant from the house and when she resisted, they tried to kill the prosecutrix. On the next day, her father went to her in-laws? place to settle the dispute but the accused persons did not mollify the demand for money.
4. It appears that at three stages, charge sheets have been submitted by Police. At the first instance, the Police submitted charge sheet No. 45 of 2009 dated 17th April 2009 (Annexure-4) for the offences under Sections 498A, 379, 376 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against Rakesh Kr. Singh, Manoranjan Pd. Singh and Indu Singh. It also appears that there was a 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding in between the parents of the prosecutrix as well as the accused persons. The learned court below vide order dated 26th May 2009 took cognizance under Sections 498A, 379, 376 and 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. It appears that a discharge application dated 17th August 2009 was filed making a prayer that no case is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra, vide order dated 21st October 2009 rejected the application which was challenged before this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 39879 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 19th February 2010 (Annexure- 7) has held that no case is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter 1st supplementary charge sheet No. 211 of 2009 was filed against Upendra Singh and Birendra Singh. They were made accused in the case. Upendra Singh and Birendra Singh had challenged the order of cognizance before this Court, vide Cr. Misc. No. 8422 of 2010 and this Court quashed the cognizance taken against Sri Birendra Singh, but allowed the case to continue against Upendra Singh. A 2 nd supplementary charge sheet was filed against Suresh Singh, Asha Devi and Pratibha Devi (Petitioners of this case) claiming that Suresh Singh knowing full well of the 1st marriage, got Pratibha married with Rakesh Kumar Singh and the court took cognizance against them on 4th September 2010/24th September 2010 for the offence under Sections 498A, 379, 376 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code but it appears from the record that the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 15th January 2011 expunged Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The petitioners of the present case are none other than it has been claimed that Pratibha Kumari, petitioner no.3 is daughter of Suresh Singh and 2nd wife of Rakesh Singh. Similarly, Asha Devi and Suresh Singh are new mother in-law and father in-law respectively.
7. An application was filed to discharge the petitioners from the present case, as no offence and materials are available against them for continuation of the trial. The court below considered the case of petitioners and vide the impugned order dated 18th April 2011 rejected the discharge petition which is under challenge before this Court.
a) It has been submitted that the 2nd wife will not be deemed to be relative as provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, as the 2nd marriage is void marriage. The status of 2nd wife arising from void marriage will be at par with paramour or concubine.
b) It has been further submitted that last date of occurrence that had taken place against the prosecutrix is on 10th October 2009 and the 2nd marriage was performed on February 2009 and, as such, there was no occasion for committing any cruelty against the prosecutrix. It is an admitted fact that from 10th October 2008 the complainant prosecutrix was neither living with the husband nor she was living in in-laws? place. So the question of any threat, cruelty or otherwise cannot be attached to the petitioners.
c) It has further been submitted that from the case diary the Police has not collected or recorded any evidence against the petitioners to show the involvement of the petitioners which may constitute an offence under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, so much so that the court below, while disposing of the discharge petition has not recorded any finding of suspicion, so much so strong suspicion.
READ Whether respondent in writ petition while supporting order passed in his favour can challenge findings recorded against him?
9. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgments reported in (2005)3 SCC 507 (Ramesh v. State of T.N.),(2009)10 SCC 184 (Neelu Chopra v. Bharti), (2010)11 SCC 618 Vijeta Gajra v. State ( NCT of Delhi) (2010)7 SCC 667 (Para-28,32,38) (Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand) AIR 1979 SC 336 (Para- 10) (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar) and (2008)14 SCC 1 (Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar) (Para-34).
10. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 controverted the argument and submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the discharge petition and has relied on the judgment reported in (1992)3 SCC 317 (Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal).
12. Another judgment that has been relied on is Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar (supra) where the Court has said that while exercising the power under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, normally the Court will examine the documents of prosecution and not of defence, but in a rare circumstance, the Court may look into an impeachable material of the defence.
13. Now let us examine the submission of the parties. It will be apt to examine Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code where the moot question will arise as to what will be the definition of relative and the meaning of cruelty. Section 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
b) She must he subjected to cruelty or harassment; and c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by relative of her husband.
15. The Court has examined the meaning of relative as has not been defined in the Code but has stated that the relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include, father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister nephew or niece, grand son or grand daughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word ,relative? will depend upon the nature of statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.
19. The Court has held that if the extracted meaning is given, it would not advance the legislative intent. On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment to a woman over the demand of money in relation to marriages otherwise it would amount to perpetuate the agony of victim lady for the greed of money. If the status of 2nd marriage would be treated to be invalid marriage, then in the circumstance, it would be a premium to a husband to get a 2nd marriage and take advantage of void marriage and to perpetuate cruelty, coercion as has been enumerated in Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
21. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has taken a view that the Court should liberally consider the word or expression relating to the person committing the offence so as to rope in not only those persons of faulty marriages but also any one who has undergone some or other forms of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband.
the petitioner no.3 who has entered into a marriage with Rakesh Kumar Singh and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be treated as a relative for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code of Rakesh Kumar Singh is not acceptable and, as such, this argument of the petitioners is rejected.
READ Whether court should give leave to defend in summary suit if suit is based on oral agreement?
24. The 2nd point for consideration is as to what are the materials available in the case diary against petitioners in connection with section 498A of Indian Penal Code. It is admitted fact that the last date of incident that had taken place with the prosecutrix is 10th October 2008 and the 2nd marriage was solemnized in February 2009. Admittedly there was no occasion for the petitioners either to commit cruelty and to assault the prosecutrix or any act connected with earlier marriage and, as such, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the offence under Section 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In view of aforesaid discussion and finding, petitioners cannot be held liable for offence under Section 379 and 498A of I.P.C.
26. As it appears from the different paragraphs of the case diary, i.e. Para-21, 71(statement of Suresh Singh, petitioner no.2), 109, 113, 116, 117, 118, 120 and 125 the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.3 and Rakesh Kumar Singh in a Hotel of Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, but there was a hazy situation in connection with facts as to whether the petitioner had prior knowledge about the first marriage or the present case was pending against Rakesh Kumar Singh and his family members but certainly there is nothing against Asha Kumari (Petitioner no.1) and, as such, it will be unnecessary for the lady to be harassed in the present case. In this view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, there is no material against petitioner No.1 Asha Kumari to proceed with the case against her as earlier this court had quashed the cognizance under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the entire proceeding against petitioner No.1 Asha Kumari is quashed.
27. So far petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, admittedly petitioner no.2 is father and petitioner no.3 is his wife. As per he case diary, the marriage was solemnized at Gorakhpur when they are resident of Chapra and, as such, it will be relevant to rely on the judgment reported in (Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal (Supra) Accordingly, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 will have to stand trial under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
28. While the Court was in process to pass the order on 13th July 2012, the counsel for the petitioners made a submission that charge u/s 494 IPC has been framed only against the husband, namely, Rakesh Singh and no charge u/s 494 IPC has been framed against these petitioners.
29. The case was brought under the heading ,To be Mention? on 16th July 2012 in order to clarify the confusion created by the counsel for the petitioners by making such submission.
30. To-day counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-13 to I.A.No. 343 of 2012 and the Form of charge where charges framed against the accused have been mentioned. The order dated 13 th September 2011 which is the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that attendance of all the accused persons has been filed, case was called out and the statement of accused persons was recorded and the charges have been framed under Sections 494A/34, 379/34, 494 IPC and 3 of the D.P.Act which were explained to all the accused persons. From this order it appears that the charges have been framed against these petitioners under Section 494 IPC also. The Form which has been annexed is not very clear to decipher the statements made therein. But the order as aforesaid is very clear and there is no confusion in this regard.
31. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the charge u/s 494 IPC is also framed against these petitioners.
32. As this Court finds that there is no material against Asha Kumari, the entire proceeding is being quashed, so far it relates to her. With regard to other persons, Para-27 of this order is clear that they will have to stand the trial u/s 494 IPC.
33. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.