( 2025:JHHC:31839 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1594 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1594 of 2024 ------ Madhvi Singh, aged about 30 years, wife of Kumar Vivek, D/o Sushil Kumar Singh, presently residing at Shiv Nagar, Singh More, P.O.-Latma, P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Om Prakash Singh, son of Late Kuldip Narayan Singh, resident of Plot No.B-12, BIADA Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Sector-12, Dist.- Bokaro Steel City. 3. Kumar Vivek, son of Om Prakash Singh, resident of Plot No.B-12, BIADA Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Sector-12, Dist.-Bokaro Steel City. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case no.1502 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro has found prima facie case ( 2025:JHHC:31839 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1594 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and the son of the complainant married the petitioner by his own choice, but after marriage of the petitioner with the son of the complainant, the family members of the petitioner pressurize the son of the complainant to come to India; as the son of the Complainant was employed in London. There is also allegation against the petitioner that on 29.04.2023, the petitioner tried to strangulate the son of the complainant and there are also allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner mentally and physically tortured the complainant by saying that she will implicate the son of the complainant and his family members in false case. 4. On the basis of complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the present case has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to save his own skin. It is next submitted that at present, the case is fixed to 22.11.2025 for evidence before charge. It is next submitted that the allegation made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, if considered to be true in their ( 2025:JHHC:31839 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1594 of 2024 entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, as there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody or inducing anybody so deceived to deliver any property, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the allegations against the petitioner are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:- (A). Deceit, i.e. to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and (B) inducing the person deceived to part with property. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person deceived, to part with any property and in the absence of the same, this Court has no ( 2025:JHHC:31839 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1594 of 2024 hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case no.1502 of 2023, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case no.1502 of 2023, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th of October, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 29/10/2025