BREIF

RICHA DALMIA & ANR. V STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

SLP (CRL.) ___/2018

Facts

1. The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint at the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class

in Dhanbad. Under the complaint, the resp. no. 2 alleged that the appellants had

hatched a criminal conspiracy and were involved in the abetment of various offences

under the IPC. The court took cognizance of the complaint of the resp. No. 2 and

issued summons to the appellants vide order dated 01.10.2015 and alleged them to

have committed offences under sections 323, 341, 498A and 34 of the IPC.

Brief of facts alleged by the complainant/resp. no. 2 –

a. Resp. no. 2 married the appellant no. 1’s brother in Agra on 24.11.2012.

b. Allegedly, the mother in law of resp. no. 2 (accused no. 2 in the complaint)

began inquiring into the financial status of the resp. no. 2 even before the

marriage was solemnized.

c. The resp. no. 2 was allegedly mistreated and pressurized for dowry by her in

laws (including appellant no. 1 and 2) upon which she allegedly returned to

her paternal home in 2013. She returned after the in-laws visited her paternal

house in September of 2013 and allegedly promised to refrain from subjecting

her to cruel and abusive treatment.

d. Resp. no. 2 and her husband had a child who was born on 07.08.2014. Resp.

no. 2 alleged that her in-laws ill treated her during pregnancy by not letting her

attain adequate rest.

 e. Resp. no. 2’s husband died on 20.03.2015 by allegedly hanging himself. Resp.

no. 2 alleged that abusive and ill treatment by her in-laws aggravated after her

husband’s death, whereby she had to leave her matrimonial house. She further

alleged that the in-laws misappropriated lacs worth of jewelry, watches, etc.

which was given to them as the resp. no. 2’s stridhan.

2. The abovementioned order of the JM 1 st class (Dhanbad) dated 01.10.2015 was

challenged by the appellants before the Jharkhand HC under section 482 of the CrPC,

praying to the HC to quash the order of the JM 1 st class. This application was made on

two grounds – 1) lack of jurisdiction and 2) no prima facie case was made out on

merits. The HC ordered (on 08.03.2016) that the order of JM 1 st class was not vitiated

due to lack of jurisdiction, however remained silent on the question of merits.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the HC dated 18.12.2017, the appellants appealed to the

Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Const. The SC held vide order dated

19.09.2017 that the order of the HC dated 08.03.2016 was sound on the issue of

jurisdiction. However, the SC ruled that the Jharkhand HC had failed to consider the

issue of maintainability of the complaint on merits. Therefore, the SC remanded the

matter back to the HC for reconsideration of the issue regarding maintainability on

merits.

4. That vide its judgement and order dated 18.12.2017 the Jharkhand HC reconsidered

the matter and took up the issue of maintainability of the complaint on merits and held

that the complaint of resp. no. 2 is maintainable on merits. This impugned order is

under challenge in the present SLP.

Grounds posited in the present petition.

1. The case of the resp. no. 2 is false

2. Resp. no. 2 concealed material facts in her complaint that her husband died due to

hanging from the ceiling. Moreover, resp. no. 2 was the only one present in the

room. She herself admitted in front of the JM 1st class that she was unaware of the

reason of her husband’s death.

3. That the Jharkhand HC failed at taking cognizance of the fact that resp. no. 2

moved out of her matrimonial house on 6.04.2015, immediately after her

husband’s death along with her child. Moreover, the complaint was filed only

after 3 months after her leaving.

4. The resp. no. 2 admitted different dates of occurrences of the crime in her

complaint vis-à-vis her affidavit filed in front of the JM 1st class in Dhanbad.

5. The resp. no. 2 posited conflicting facts in her complaint, her statement of oath

and her counter affidavit, wherein in one instance she admitted that her father-in-

law had come to her paternal house to convince her to come back to her

matrimonial house in September of 2013. In another instance she stated that her

father-in-law was not present during this event.

6. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 were staying in Kolkata and Mumbai respectively and

therefore could not have been involved in alleged harassment for dowry. Since the

petitioners reside in separate cities, they could not have had a say in the day-to-

day life of the resp. no. 2. (relied on Geeta Mehrotra & anr. V State of UP).

7. The allegations against petitioner no. 1 and 2 are bald allegations and not

supported by facts. The allegation against petitioner 1 and 2 falls under section

109 and 120B of the IPC. The JM 1st class refused to take cognizance under these

sections.. Additionally, allegation against petitioner no. 2 also falls under section

506 was not substantiated by evidence.e.

8. The Jharkhand HC failed at taking cognizance of the fact that the motive behind

the resp. no. 2’s complaint was possibly that she wanted to keep her in-laws away

from her child “Yuvan”.

9. The High court failed in taking notice of the fact that all the allegations that could

be made out against the present petitioners were only related to sections 109,

120B, 506 and 406 of the IPC, all of which were dismissed by the JM 1st class in

his order.

10. The resp. no. 2 had taken all her belongings, including the Stridhan when she left

after her husband’s death, a fact that shows that she herself was not interested in

returning to her marital home.

11. The in-laws of the resp. no. 2 provided her with Rs. 50,000/- per month, which

was more than her monthly expenses. Therefore, no question of harassment for

dowry arose.

12. The JM 1st class failed to inquire into the bank statements of the resp. no. 2,

although she had admitted that she maintained a bank account. This is an evidence

of non-application of mind by the JM 1st class and must have been taken into

consideration by the Jharkhand HC in passing the impugned order, however it

failed to do so.

13. The High Court failed to take cognizance of the fact that the respon. No. 2 only

filed the complaint after three months, although she could have done the same

earlier.

14. The part of the complaint regarding incidents surrounding 2013 (when the resp.

no. 2 had left her matrimonial home for the first time) were marred with delays.