0

Dowry harassment case revived by Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction ruling of the High Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 10668 of 2022

Dated on – 30th April,2024

Quorum – Justice Aravind Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, the Appellant and the Respondent No.8 were espoused twice on the date 5th of October,2018 in Kolkata and on date 18th of January, 2019 in Jamshedpur. The accusations in this present case are inclusive of abuse by the in-laws concerning the dowry demands, abuse, and physical assault. The Appellant in the present case, lodged a complaint on the 4th of March,2021 which resulted in an institution of an FIR No. 68 of 2021 against Respondent 3 to 8. The Respondents did not reply to the investigation notices resulting in the issuance of Non-Bailable warrants. The Respondents 3 and 4, on date 17th of June, 2021, were arrested with others filing the applications for bail. The Appellant in this case, challenged the order dated 16th of June, 2022 of the Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M. P No. 1291 of 2021, which quashed the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3 to 8 for the offenses under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), and the Non-Bailable warrants were issued against them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the it was an error on the part of the High Court in quashing the proceedings on the basis of non-compliance with the Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complaint perspicuously reveals the offenses and that the High Court should not have intervened with the process of investigation
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court faultily considered the territorial jurisdiction on the basic of the residency, ignoring the facts related to the jurisdiction.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the application of the High Court of principles from the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was erroneous.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court justifiably quashed the proceedings.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as non-compliance with Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the lack of jurisdiction as per the allegations.
  4. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the generic and omnibus nature of allegations against them.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
  2. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
  3. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intend to provoke breach of peace
  4. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
  5. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for giving or taking dowry
  6. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for demanding dowry
  7. Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states the Notice of appearance before police officer

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, stated that the court cannot conduct a mini trial or entertain evidence at the stage of quashing the proceedings. The court stated that the complaints contain the specified accusations against the Respondent 3,4, and 8 and thus, quashing was erred. The court regarding the territorial jurisdiction, stated that the residency of the Appellant at Jamshedpur was sufficient for the purpose of jurisdiction. The court in this case ruled that the accusations in the complaint must disclose a prima facie case against the accused and that the lack of specific details in the complaint doesn’t justify the quashing proceedings. The court in this case, set aside the quashing the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3,4, and 8 and upheld the Respondents 3,4, and 8 due to the lack in specific accusations. The court achieved for record-keeping purpose, any pending applications (if any).

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment