( 2025:JHHC:11869 ) Cr.M.P. No.42 of 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 42 of 2019 1. Mahmood Khan, aged about 46 years, son of Samsul Hoda, 2. Sajda Khatoon, aged about 31 years, wife of Mahmood Khan, Both residing at Qtrs No. 7, Block No. 46, Isko (ISP), Varnpur, P.O. & P.S. –Hirapur, District –Burdwan (West Bengal) 3. Jahida Khatoon @ Zahida Khatoon, aged about 27 years, daughter of Md. Ali, 4. Jamila Begam, aged about 62 years, wife of Md. Ali, 5. Md. Ali @ Md. Ally, aged about 67 years, son of Late Hedayat Ali 6. Rahmat Ali @ Md. Rahmat Ali, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Ali, 7. Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Ali, 8. Shahida Khatoon @ Shahida Beguam, aged about 34 years, wife of Abdul Neyaz Sheikh, 9. Niyaj Sheikh @ Abdul Niyaj @ Abdul Niyaz Sheikh @ Abdul Neyaz, aged about 34 years, son of Late Abdul Hafiz 10. Sahima Khatoon @ Sahima Parween, aged about 21 years, wife of Rahmati Ali, 11. Shabana Parween, aged about 44 years, wife of Ashraf Ali, 12. Ashraf Ali, aged about 50 years, son of Md. Ali, Petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 are residents of Arbinda Nagar, South Bazar, Andal, P.O. & P.S. –Andal, District –Burdwan (West Bengal). .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ladli Khatun, aged about 25 years, daughter of Sagir Khan, residing at Purani Basti No. 10, Digwadih, P.O. –Jealgora, PS –Jorapokhar, District –Dhanbad, PIN -828110 (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. ( 2025:JHHC:11869 ) Cr.M.P. No.42 of 2019 2 For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Amicus Curiae ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2628 of 2017 including the order dated 04.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/379/448/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.7 on 26.05.2017 trespassed to the house of the complainant, outraged her modesty by pinning her down upon the bed, caused hurt to her and wrongfully restrained her. Though in the complaint, it has been mentioned that on 27.052017, the other petitioners also assaulted the complainant but neither the complainant in her statement under solemn affirmation nor any of the inquiry witnesses have stated anything to implicate the petitioners except the petitioner no.7; in the alleged offence. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 –Sajda Khatoon was the wife of the maternal uncle of the complainant- opposite party no.2 namely Mahmood Khan and as after the ( 2025:JHHC:11869 ) Cr.M.P. No.42 of 2019 3 marriage of petitioner no.2 with Mahmood Khan on 23.10.2013, the petitioner no.2 was tortured in connection of demand of dowry and the in-laws of the petitioner no.2 tried to kill her and ultimately ousted her from her matrimonial house, the petitioner no.2 lodged Andal P.S. Case No. 202 of 2015. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this complaint has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 for wreaking vengeance. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.7 is undergoing treatment for his spinal cord. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned Amicus Curiae on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali of outraging the modesty of the complainant on 26.05.2017 and besides the same being averred in the complaint, the complainant in her statement under solemn affirmation as well as inquiry witnesses in their statement have supported the same. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner no.7 of having on 26.05.2017 outraging the modesty of the ( 2025:JHHC:11869 ) Cr.M.P. No.42 of 2019 4 complainant after trespassing to her house and wrongfully restraining her. The same has been averred in the complaint and the complainant in her statement under solemn affirmation as well as the inquiry witness nos. 2 & 3 have stated about the same in their statement. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali in this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 7. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the only allegation against her is that she went with the jewelries. Undisputedly, the petitioner no.2 is the wife of the maternal uncle of the complainant and at the relevant time, the complainant was residing in the house of her maternal uncle. So a wife taking jewelries from the house where she was living with her husband, even if are considered to be true, will not make out any offence. 8. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 are concerned, there is general and omnibus allegation against them in the complaint but neither the complainant in her statement under solemn affirmation nor any of the inquiry witnesses have stated anything to implicate them in this case. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed qua the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 only. ( 2025:JHHC:11869 ) Cr.M.P. No.42 of 2019 5 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2628 of 2017 including the order dated 04.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/379/448/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 12. 11. In view of disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 26.11.2019 is vacated. 12. It is made clear that the Complaint Case No. 2628 of 2017 shall continue against the petitioner no.7 –Shaukat Ali @ Md. Shaukat Ali. 13. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th April, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-