IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2405 of 2016

1. Pramay Chhatra @ Sri Pramaya Chhatra
2. Shradha Chhatra @ Riddhi Chhatra
3. Chirag Romit Chhatra @ Chirag Chhatra
4. Vridhi Hiran Chhatra @ Vridhi Chhatra
5. Vipin M. Chhatra @ B.K. Chhatra @ Vipin S. Chhatra
6. Vibha Vipin Chhatra @ Vibha B. Chattra
7. Kunal Chhatra …Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anamika Kumari Singh @ Anamika Pramay Chhatra
…Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate
For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajnandan Chatterjee, Advocate
---
04/06.05.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent State and opposite party no. 2.
2. The prayer is made in the petition for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2016
arising out of CP Case No. 2005 of 2015 pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. Complaint has been filed alleging therein that the marriage of the
complainant got solemnized with the petitioner no 1 on 21-5-13 in
Gujarat. At the time of marriage various gift items were given to the
groom side by the father of the complainant. It is alleged that after the
marriage the Petitioner no. 1 did not sleep with the complainant and
when she tried to know the reasons no satisfactory answer was given by
the Petitioner no 1. Finally the Petitioner no. 1 expressed his inability to
become father as he said he was impotent. It is further alleged in the
complaint petition that after marriage the complainant came to know that
the petitioner no. 1 suppressed his real age at the time of marriage. It is
alleged that after marriage the Petitioner No.1, accused no. 2 and
Petitioner No. 3 started demanding a four wheeler vehicle from the
complainant and when she protested she was tortured physically. It is
Cr.M.P. No. 2405 of 2016
Page 1 of 4
alleged that the other accused persons also teased and tortured her for
getting less gifts. It is alleged that in absence of Petitioner No. 1 the
accused no. 2 tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. It is
further alleged that on 26.08.2014 the complainant was expelled from her
matrimonial home and when on 21.11.2014 the complainant along with
her mother and brother went to her matrimonial home, they were insulted
and the Petitioners forcibly took their signature on Stamp papers. Lastly
it was also alleged that the accused no. 2 on 10.04.2015 came to the
maternal home the complainant and demanded a four-wheeler vehicle
from the complainant and upon refusal the complainant and her family
members were abused and threatened that if their demands are not
fulfilled the marriage of Petitioner No. 1 will be solemnized at another
place.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1
is the husband, petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 are the niece in law of opposite
party no. 2, petitioner no. 5 is cousin brother in-law of opposite party no.
2 and petitioner no. 6 is the wife of the petitioner no. 5. He submits that
the case is registered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and
the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance and the entire
allegations are general and omnibus against all the accused persons. He
submits that the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on
21.05.2013 wherein the earlier marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was
dissolved on 20.03.2014 by a mutual agreement by the judgment of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in T.M.S. No. 70 of
2013. He submits that suppressing the earlier marriage the second
marriage was solemnized and in view of that she is not the wife of the
petitioner no. 1. He submits that unnecessarily the other persons who are
not concerned have been made accused on general and omnibus
allegations. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1 has already filed a
case for nullity of marriage before the competent Family Court, Rajkot
which is pending. On these grounds, he submits that, entire criminal
proceeding may kindly be quashed.

Cr.M.P. No. 2405 of 2016

Page 2 of 4
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned court has taken
the cognizance on a complaint and he submits that the proceeding may
not be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the
nothing has been suppressed and knowing the fact that the opposite party
no. 2 is married with another man and the mutual divorce has already
been filed on 31.03.2013 and thereafter the marriage was solemnized. He
submits that this marriage was solemnized with consent of the petitioner
and opposite party no. 2. In view of that the entire criminal proceeding
may not be quashed.
7. Coming to the facts of the present case it appears that so far as the
petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned they are niece in law and the
petitioner no. 5 is the cousin brother in law of the opposite party no. 2
and petitioner no. 6 is the wife of the petitioner no. 5. Petitioner no. 1 is
the husband and petitioner 7 is the nephew of the opposite party no. 2.
8. In the solemn affirmation there are general and omnibus allegations
against the accused persons. In view of that prima facie case so far as the
petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are concerned are not made out as there are general
and omnibus allegations against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6.
9. In the case of K.S. Subbarao Vs. State of Telangana reported in
2018 (14) SCC 452 it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relative in
crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are
made out.
10. Adding the entire family members of the husband in a case arising
out of 498 A the Indian Penal Code was deprecated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Arnesh Kumar vs. State Of Bihar & Anr reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the
general and omnibus allegations have leveled against the petitioner nos. 2
to 6. The complainant alleged that all accused harassed her mentally and

Cr.M.P. No. 2405 of 2016

Page 3 of 4
 demanded dowry. There is no specific and distinct allegations so far as
the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are concerned.
12. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 7 are concerned there are
allegations against them in solemn affirmation as well as in the complaint
petition and the learned court has taken the cognizance pursuant to the
solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses.
13. So far as the nullity point is concerned as argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners with regard to the petitioner no. 1 the suit for
nullity of the marriage is already pending before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Rajko filed by the petitioner no. 1. Thus, that aspect
is still under consideration by a competent court and the
judgment/finding can’t be given in the present case and on the basis of
that only the petitioner no. 1 can’t be allowed not to face the trial.
14. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2016 so far as the petitioner nos. 2
to 6 are concerned, is, hereby, quashed. This petition is allowed in above
terms and disposed of.
15. It is made clear that this case has not quashed the proceeding
including the order taking cognizance so far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 7
are concerned and they will face the trial and the learned court will
proceed in accordance with law.
16. In above terms, the petition is allowed partly.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

MM

Cr.M.P. No. 2405 of 2016

Page 4 of 4