IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1755 of 2024 Aastha Jaiswal, aged about 31 years, Wife of Sri Ahish Priyadarshi and Daughter of Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, presently residing at B-7 / 200, Kedar Ghat Bhelupur (B-700 Baghada, Sonarpura), P.O. – Sonarpura, P.S. – Bhelpur, District – Varanasi / Uttar Pradesh, Office address Bank of New York, Melon, Level – 13, Tower S-3 Cyber City, P.O. – Magarpatta, P.S. – Hadpasar, District – Pune / Maharastra. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Birendra Kumar (retired SBI Manager), Son of Late Baban Prasad, Resident of Flat No. 201-A, Sky Dale Apartment, Harihar Singh Road, Morahabadi, P.S. and P.O. – Bariatu, District – Ranchi / Jharkhand. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate. --------- Order No. 04/Dated: 17th January, 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. in connection with Complaint Case No. 6727 of 2023 filed by the opposite party no. 2 and also for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 6727of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from reading of contents of complaint petition, which was lodged for taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 385, 499, 504, 506 & 307 of the I.P.C., but no offence was found constituted after conducting enquiry by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and he simply issued summons against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. There is general and vague allegation about threatening to kill the complainant and apprehension of life at the hands of present petitioner, who happens to be daughter-in-law of the complainant. 4. It is further submitted that in the complaint petition itself, it is alleged that the present petitioner, who was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally went to Bariatu police station for lodging the case against her husband, who is son of the complainant on 02.06.2006. Till then, no case was filed for any kind of mis-deeds of the petitioner, but when the matter was settled by the police on 02.06.2023, then this false case has been instituted with concocted story and fabricated date of occurrence has been shown as 09.12.2022. The present case has been lodged with a view to adopt pressure tactics upon the petitioner, who has been left by her husband on her own fate. Therefore, entire proceeding of the complaint case including cognizance order and further proceeding is nothing else, but abuse of process of the Court, which is liable to be set aside and this petition may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the entire contents of the complaint disclose the offence as mentioned in the complaint petition. The learned trial court has very wisely taken into consideration the contents of the complaint petition as well as statement of enquiry witnesses and rightly passed the order summoning the accused for the offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, calling for any interference and accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of rival contentions of the parties. It appears from perusal of impugned order that after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the complaint petition and the statement of enquiry witnesses, the concerned court has passed the summoning order under Section 506 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner without recording the materials constituting the said offence. It also appears that serious allegations contained in the complaint petition has been disbelieved. Admittedly, the petitioner is daughter-in-law of the complainant and present proceeding appears to be filed due to certain domestic disputes. It is also admitted in the complaint petition itself that at first present petitioner went to police station for lodging case against the complainant party, which was pacified by calling upon the complainant at the police station. Thereafter, this complaint case was lodged showing earlier incident dated 09.12.2022 for lodging the case against her husband, as the date of occurrence of this case is 02.06.2023. The present proceeding is nothing, but abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6727 of 2023 along with further proceedings of the case is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/-