( 2025:JHHC:32893 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2023 With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2738 of 2023 Usha Devi, Aged about 46 Years, W/o – Dilip Kumar Malakar, R/o –Village –Bari Bhagiyamari, Sakrigali River Block, P.O. –Sakrigali, P.S. –Taljhari, District –Sahibganj. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Priyanka Kumari, D/o –Sanjeev Mandal, R/o –Bada Jirwabari, Premnagar, P.O. –Borio, P.S. –Borio (Jirwabari), District –Sahibganj. (Mobile No. 7294109961) …. Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 1. Dilip Kumar Malakar @ Dilip Malakar, Aged about 54 Years, S/o Devendra Malakar, 2. Ram Kumar Malakar @ Suraj Malakar @ Suraj Kumar, Aged about 20 Years, S/o –Dilip Kumar Malakar, Both are R/o Village –Bari Bhagiyamari, Sakrigali River Block, P.O. –Sakrigali, P.S. –Taljhari, District –Sahibganj. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Priyanka Kumari, D/o –Sanjeev Mandal, R/o –Bada Jirwabari, Premnagar, P.O. –Borio, P.S. –Borio (Jirwabari), District –Sahibganj. (Mobile No. 7294109961). …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate : Mr.Deepak Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate ….. ( 2025:JHHC:32893 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2023 With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 323/504/506/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2738 of 2023 namely Usha Devi being the mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 1 of Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 being the father- in-law and the petitioner no.2 being the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant-opposite party no.2 have treated the informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, criminally intimidated her and intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence besides demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and harassed the informant-opposite party no.2 with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and the harassment continued on account of failure of the informant-opposite party no.2 and her relatives to meet the said unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. The informant filed Complaint Case No. 575 of 2021 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022 has been registered and police has taken up investigation of the case and it is submitted by the learned counsel ( 2025:JHHC:32893 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2023 With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is still going on at present. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that after institution of this case, the opposite party no.2 has instituted Complaint Case No. 77 of 2022 against the accused persons of the case in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but did not issue any summons to the petitioners of these two cases. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 submits that in the facts of that case, when the first complaint instituted by the complainant ended in a compromise and in which summons were issued only against the husband of the complainant but subsequently the complainant/informant lodged an F.I.R. against the husband as well as his family members, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering that there was no specific role attributed to the family members of the husband of the informant, quashed the entire criminal proceedings. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since summons has not been issued to the petitioners in the subsequent case instituted by the informant, the prayer as prayed for in these two criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. ( 2025:JHHC:32893 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2023 With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered besides Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that filing of a subsequent case by the informant for a subsequent occurrence cannot have any bearing on the proceedings of this case. Hence, it is submitted that both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the law is well settled that unless the subsequent or second case is a counter-case for the self-same occurrence, the subsequent F.I.R. or the Complaint ought not to be entertained but here, unlike the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra), the prayer is not for quashing the second and subsequent criminal proceeding. Therefore, only because, for a subsequent occurrence, a complaint was instituted and in which summons were not issued to the petitioners, that cannot be a ground for quashing the first F.I.R. in which there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of treating the informant with cruelty by harassing her, to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the informant and her parents causing, hurt to her in the process and also intentionally insulting the ( 2025:JHHC:32893 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2738 of 2023 With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 informant by provoking her to commit breach of peace or to commit any other offence and criminally intimidating her. Though the F.I.R. has not been registered under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but the demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by the petitioners is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also. The veracity of the allegations is to be tested during the investigation of the case which is going on at present as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences as made above are made out against the petitioners. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be quashed and set aside in exercise of Power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit are dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th October, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 04/11/2025