( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.136 of 2024 ------ 1. Ajit Vishwakarma, S/o Jagdish Lal Vishwakarma, aged 34 years, 2. Jagdish Lal Vishwakarma, S/o Late Mahavir Lal Vishwakarma, aged 78 years, 3. Shanti Devi, W/o Jagdish Lal Vishwakarma, aged 78 years, 4. Arun Vishwakarma @ Bablu, s/o Jagdish Lal Vishwakarma, aged 53 years, 5. Rina Devi, W/o Arun Vishwakarma, aged 48 years, All 1 to 5 r/o Fatehpur Lane, PO & PS Jharia, District Dhanbad. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Soni Kumari @ Soni Devi, w/o Ajit Vishwakarma, D/o Late Indra Deo Vishwakarma, Amlabad Colliery, PO Amlabad, PS- Chandankiari, District Bokaro. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Mehul Raj, 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 ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 proceeding arising out of CC No.909 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 379, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the charge has not been framed in this case and trial is yet to begin. 4. The allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the husband, petitioner no.2 being the father-in-law, petitioner no.3 being the mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 being the Bhaisur (brother-in- law) and petitioner no.5 being the Jethani (wife of the petitioner no.4) in furtherance of their common intention used to demand dowry of Rs.3 lakhs after 15-20 days of the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no.1 and all the accused persons together used to harass her to coerce her to meet their unlawful dowry demand. The complainant as a part of harassment was made to work like an animal and that too without being provided food. The complainant was forced to eat food sent by her mother, because the petitioners did not provide her any food and on the complainant becoming ill, petitioner no.1, 4 & 5 used to tell her to call her father for treatment of her illness and thus the complainant used to go to her mother’s place upon becoming ill and after treatment of her illness when she used to become alright, then only she was coming to her matrimonial house, but again she was made to work like an animal. ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 Because of consistent demand of dowry, the father of the complainant was forced to sale his land to meet the dowry demand and from time to time used to pay Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- to the petitioners and in total, though, the father of the complainant paid Rs.6 lakhs to the accused persons but even after that, the accused persons continued their dowry demand and the dowry demand was enhanced from time to time and the complainant was told by the petitioners for another Rs.5 lakhs of dowry. Because of consistent demand of dowry, mental pressure and tension, the father of the complainant died on 16.03.2018 and after the death of the father of the complainant, the harassment, torture and treatment of cruelty meted out by the petitioners was enhanced and the petitioner no.3 & 5 used to tell the complainant to only work and to eat food by bringing food from her mother. In the meanwhile, all the petitioners together assaulted the complainant so severely by which the baby given birth by the complainant died after 10-12 days of his birth. The petitioners never went to see the child given birth by the complainant nor did they pay any expenses of the Mediclinic where the complainant was admitted as a patient for the delivery of the baby. In June, 2021, the petitioner no.1, 2 & 4 went to the paternal house of the complainant and set the condition precedent of fulfilling the additional dowry demand of Rs.3 lakhs and a motorcycle, for taking the complainant back to her matrimonial house. At this even though the mother of the complainant expressed her inability to meet the additional dowry demand because of the death of her husband and her poor financial condition, still the petitioners did not agree to take ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 the complainant back to her matrimonial house; without fulfilment of the demand of dowry. On 20.08.2021 at about 01:00 PM, the petitioner no.1 & 4 came to the paternal house of the complainant and started quarrelling with the mother of the complainant in respect of taking the complainant back to her matrimonial house and petitioner no.4 outraged the modesty of the mother of the complainant by tearing her blouse and Saari and made her naked and threatened to commit rape upon her. The petitioner no.1 also abused by using filthy language and snatched away the gold chain of the mother of the complainant and thrashed the complainant on the floor by catching hold of her hair with an intention to kill her, climbed upon the chest with an intention to kill, smothered her chest with his legs and throttled her neck. The complainant somehow managed to escape from the place of occurrence and raised hue and cry, thereafter, the neighbours came and the accused persons went away without taking the complainant to her matrimonial house. 5. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 379, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and issued summons to the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neelu Chopra and Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 and submits that therein ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that in this case, there is no specific role attributed each of the petitioners and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and submits that wherein in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein in the facts of that case in the complaint, allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2 of that case assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except the demand of ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment in that case relied upon its judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The relevant para-20 of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) reads as under:- “20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint has been filed for wrecking vengeance only because of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant and submits that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit by drawing attention of this Court towards the statement made under ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 solemn affirmation by the complainant and the complaint itself, that there is specific allegation against each of the petitioners of demanding dowry initially of Rs.3 lakhs to be brought by the complainant from her father’s house and such demand was made 15-20 days after the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no.1. There is also direct and specific allegation against each of the petitioners of harassing the complainant to meet the unlawful demand of dowry by abusing her, making her work like an animal, not providing food to her and thereby forcing her to eat the food provided by her mother, even though, she was living in her matrimonial house. There are also allegations against the petitioner no.1, 4 & 5 of harassing the complainant by forcing her to go to the house of her mother to get herself treated whenever she was becoming ill; instead of providing medical care in her matrimonial home. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner no.3 & 5 of telling the complainant to arrange food from the house of her mother even though she was residing in her matrimonial house. There is also specific allegation against all the petitioners that they beat up the complainant so severely that the baby she delivered died 10-12 days after the delivery of the baby. There is specific allegation of June, 2021 against the petitioner no.1, 2 & 4 of setting up the condition precedent of fulfilment of additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs and a motorcycle to take back the complainant to her matrimonial house and there is specific allegation which took place at about 01:00 PM on 20.08.2021 against the petitioner no.1 & 4 so it is submitted that unlike the facts of the cases, the judgments ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 8 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 of which were relied by the petitioners in this case, there is direct and specific allegations against each of the petitioners on difference occasions which undoubtedly makes out each of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case, hence, it is submitted that the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners is not attracted to the facts of the case. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 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 it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424 paragraph-8 of which reads as under:- “8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 9 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.” 13. Now coming to the facts of the case as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of those judgments, there is direct and specific allegations against each of the petitioners on separate incidents, of course, the date and time of some which has not been mentioned, but keeping in view the status of the complainant who appears not to be highly educated and the complaint was filed narrating the occurrences which took place over a period of 4 years; in the considered opinion of this Court, non- mentioning of exact time and date of each and every occurrences which took place over a period of 4 years will not be fatal at least at the stage of issuing summons, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is more allegations than a general and omnibus allegation in the complaint which has been supported by the complainant in her statement on solemn affirmation as well as the enquiry witnesses. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prosecution of the petitioners be stifled at this nascent stage by quashing the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioners; as it appears that the petitioners have evaded appearing before the trial Court for over a period of 4 years and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is fixed for appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court. ( 2025:JHHC:37820 ) 10 Cr. M.P. No.136 of 2024 15. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 03/01/2026