( 2025:JHHC:38708 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 928 of 2023 1. Mukesh Kumar Verma, aged about 29 years, son of Sri Rameshwar Mahto, 2. Rameshwar Mahto, aged about 69 years, son of Late Mahadeo Mahto 3. Savitri Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of Sri Rameshwar Mahto, all resident of village Chandramarni, P.O. & P.S. –Sariya, District –Giridih. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chinta Devi, wife of Sri Etwari Mahto, resident of Suiyadih, P.O. – Pesam, P.S. –Birni, District –Giridih. . …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Murty, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 512 of 2018 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 18.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has found sufficient materials against the petitioners for having committed the offences ( 2025:JHHC:38708 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2023 punishable under Section 341/323/365/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the meanwhile the charge has been framed against the petitioners and two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but the petitioners have not challenged the charge framed against the petitioners nor the petitioners have brought the deposition of the evidence of the two witnesses examined during the trial in the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioners are false. Prior to filing of the present complaint petition, the petitioner no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 432 of 2018. It is further submitted that there is a delay of three months in lodging this complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the victim and the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. 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 counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the husband, petitioner no.2 being the father-in-law and the petitioner no.3 being the mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant treated her with cruelty in ( 2025:JHHC:38708 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2023 connection of demand of dowry of a motorcycle, caused hurt to her, wrongfully restrained her, did not allow the complainant to take her daughter back and abducted the victim with intent to cause the victim to be secretly and wrongfully confined and on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has found sufficient materials against the petitioners for having committed the said offences as already indicated above. It is next submitted that since there is sufficient material in the record to frame charges against the petitioners, the same has rightly been framed and even the petitioners have no grievance in respect of the framing of the charge against them and at this belated stage when two witnesses have been examined in this case and they have supported the case of the prosecution and the overwhelming evidence has come in support of the case of the complainant to establish each of the charges against the petitioner, hence it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. 6. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to the victim, wrongfully restraining and abducting her with intent to cause her to be secretly and wrongfully confined. Undisputedly, charge has been framed against the petitioners and the petitioners have no grievance ( 2025:JHHC:38708 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2023 against the framing of charge. Undisputedly two witnesses have been examined but the petitioners have not brought their testimony in the record of this case. In view of the allegations against the petitioners as the offence punishable under Section 341/323/365/120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, hence this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 512 of 2018 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 18.08.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has found sufficient materials against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 341/323/365/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/01/2026