(2025:JHHC:19477) 1 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4767 of 2022 ------ 1. Jaydev Kumar @ Jaydeo Sao @ Jaydeo Saw aged about 29 Year son of Late Mahabir Prasad Saw resident of house no.127 Jodhadih more, Chandankiyari road, Chas P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro 2. Sunita Gorain @ Sunita Gorai @ Soni Gorai aged about 36 Year wife of Kedar Gorain @ Kedar Gorai. 3. Kedar Gorain @ Kedar Gorai aged about 40 Year son of Kartik Chandra Garain Both above serial no. 2 and 3 are resident of village Chitmu, P.O. & P.S. & District Purulia, West Bengal 4. Sujata Gorain @ Sujata Gorai, aged about 44 Year wife of Chandan Gorain, resident of ward no.4, Bhatbandh, Purulia I, P.O. & P.S. & District Purulia, West Bengal 5. Moni Devi @ Moni Saw @ Maniya Devi, aged about 37 Year wife of Mukesh Kumar Sahu @ Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Saw. 6. Mukesh Kumar Sahu @ Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Saw aged about 39 Year son of Banarasi Sahu Both above serial no.5 and 6 are resident of ghujadih, Dumri Panchayat, P.O. & P.S. Dumri, District Giridih … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kumari Puja Saha wife of Deonath Saw daughter of Dinesh Kumar Saha presently residing at her father house at village G.T. Road Ishri Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Nimiyaghat, District- Giridih Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T (2025:JHHC:19477) 2 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 and the order taking cognizance dated 10.08.2022, by which consequent upon submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioners, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the informant, treated her with cruelty by harassing her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- by making false allegation that the informant is a Daain (witch) and on that pretext, assaulted her on several occasions, for the reason of non-fulfilling the demand of dowry. The petitioners also forcibly took away jewelleries as well as valuable gifts, given to the informant, by her family members. The petitioners forcibly made her abort the foetus within two months of her pregnancy and the harassment and cruelty continued for fourteen (14) months. By regular assault, denying food and making the informant starve, the health condition of the informant deteriorated. But even then she was not treated by any doctor. Ultimately, the informant was forced to go to her maternal house with her brother but after the informant was cured of the disease, she went to her matrimonial house with her father but the petitioners again assaulted her and called her Daain (witch) (2025:JHHC:19477) 3 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 and drove her out from her matrimonial house for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand and on the pretext of assault, the petitioner Nos.1 and 6 outraged the modesty of the informant as well, while the petitioner No.2 called the informant a Daain (witch) and snatched away her Mangalsutra (necklace). On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after perusal of the case record, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 498A, 354, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and took up cognizance of the said offences inter alia against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that this case was lodged only after institution of Original Suit No.578 of 2021 for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the petitioners basically seek quashing of the entire criminal proceedings on two grounds, first is that the allegation against them is false and second is that this case was instituted after a petition for dissolution of the marriage was filed by the husband of the informant, who is not a petitioner herein. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against (2025:JHHC:19477) 4 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still all the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance, consequent upon submission of the charge-sheet, is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that this Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot evaluate the veracity of the defence of the petitioners or the contention of the accused persons that they are innocent as that is the job of the trial court and for which evidence is required to be taken, which is not before this Court at present. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with, as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- (2025:JHHC:19477) 5 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and treating the informant with cruelty by harassing her and the harassment was with the view to coerce the informant and her parents to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 9. In view of the direct allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the informant on several occasions after catching hold of her, the offence punishable under Section 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioners. 10. There is specific allegation against the petitioner Nos.1 and 6 of outraging the modesty of the informant. So, the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out. 11. There is allegation against the petitioners of taking the jewelleries and other valuable gifts from the possession of the informant given to her without the consent of the informant and for the same the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioners (2025:JHHC:19477) 6 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022 and there is further allegation against the petitioners that all these offences were committed by the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with each other with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the accused persons can be held responsible for the offences committed in furtherance of common intention with each other. The allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. In view of the discussions made above as the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the materials available in the record, has found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 and the order taking cognizance dated 10.08.2022. 13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of July, 2025 AFR/ Animesh