(2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2421 of 2024 1. Jaya Kindo, aged about 27 years, d/o Basant Kindo, r/o H.No.72, Gitilpiri, Hatia Station Road, Hatia, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003 2. Gaurav Navin Kindo @ Navin Gaurav Kindo, aged about 30 years, s/o Basant Kindo, r/o H.No.72, Gitilpiri, Near Assri Garden, Hatia Station Road, Hatia, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834003 3. Urwashi Kindo, aged about 55 years, w/o Basant Kindo, r/o, Hatia Station, Hatia Railway Colony, Gitilpiri, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003 4. Niraj Kumar Bhagat, aged about 34 years, s/o Surendra Bhagat, r/o House No. 56, Bhagat Lodge, Bardwan Compound Lalpur, P.O.- G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 5. Deepak Bhagat @ Deepak Oraon, aged about 38 years, s/o Baldeo Bhagat, r/o H. No. 1/R23, Edalhatu, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.-Lower Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008 6. Shabnam Bhagat @ Shabnam Oraon, aged about 47 years, w/o Deepak Bhagat, r/o H. No. 1/R23, Edalhatu, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.- Lower Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008 7. Rupci Kujur, aged about 54 years, w/o Ajaydarshan Kujur, r/o Vill.-Murma, VTC Murma, P.S.-Mandar, P.O.-Murma, Mandar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835205 8. Chandra Darshan Kujur, aged about 21 years, s/o Ajay Darshan Kujur, r/o Vill.-Murma, P.S.-Mandar, P.O.-Murma, Mandar, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand-835205 9. Manoj Kumar Bhagat, s/o Shri Surendra Bhagat, aged about 41 years, r/o Near Vikas Bhawan, Lower Bardwan Compound Lalpur, P.O.- Ranchi G.P.O., P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 .... Petitioners Versus (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 2 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kismanti Minz, d/o Mahavir Oraon, r/o Siddharth Enclave, Hawai Nagar, Hatia, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate : Mr. Mrinalini Adela Teti, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kumar Minz, Advocate : Mr. Elwin N. Tirkey, Advocate : Mr. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate : Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner no.9 being the husband and the petitioner nos.1 to 8 being the relatives of the petitioner no.9, in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons treated the informant with cruelty, with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of a four-wheeler vehicle (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 3 and demanded the dowry of the said four-wheeler vehicle. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the informant by falsely claiming that she is under the influence of ghost; only because she did not meet their unlawful dowry demand of a four-wheeler vehicle. The petitioners looted the gold and silver jewelry including the mangalsutra of the informant. The act of cruelty of the petitioners did not stop with the informant only and they went on to harass the mother of the informant also in connection of the demand of dowry and because of the shock, the mother of the informant died of cardiac arrest on 28.04.2021. There is further allegation that the petitioners being not contented with even the death of the mother of the informant, went on to the extent of destroying the house of the informant situated at Ranchi on 17.06.2021. They also threatened the informant to broke her marriage with the petitioner no.9 because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police took up investigation of the case and at present the investigation of the case is going on. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 that in paragraph no.41 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the High Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated in the case of State of (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 4 Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the informant and her family members have cheated the petitioners by claiming that the informant is working as Civil Judge, Junior Division. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant suppressed the material fact that she was divorcee before marrying the petitioner no.9. Relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12354 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 in the case of Mukesh & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same being not a judgement about only an order, certainly whatever observed therein cannot be treated as ratio but it can be treated as a obiter dicta and therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in a petition for quashing either under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including the challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law and in such proceeding the accused can rely upon documents which are not the part of the charge sheet. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that none of the conditions as mentioned in paragraph no. 102 of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) is made out in the facts of the case. It is then submitted by the learned (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 5 Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the allegations made against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute each of the offences, for which the FIR has been registered. Learned Spl. P.P. relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, paragraph no. 27.12 of which reads as under:- “27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution” (emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India enlisted the principle with reference to which court should exercise the jurisdiction under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it has been categorically held that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot take into consideration the external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal and the court has to consider the record and the document annexed therewith by the prosecution. 7. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the undisputed fact remains that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, all the offences for which the FIR has been registered is in fact, made out and the defence of the petitioners if any can be raised during the trial but the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 6 criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, paragraph no.11 of which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self- destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) that the defence of the accused person cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence. 9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 7 principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be the job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of making the dowry demand of a four-wheeler vehicle and harassing the informant with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of four-wheeler vehicle. 12. The contention of the petitioners that the informant mispresented herself before them prior to her marriage that she was a Civil Judge, Junior Division certainly did not confer any right upon the petitioners to treat the informant with cruelty or to make the dowry (2025:JHHC:32676) Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024 8 demand of a four-wheeler vehicle nor the same gives the right to the petitioners to harass the informant in order to coerce her to fulfil their unlawful demand of a four-wheeler vehicle. 13. This Court after going through the materials in the record is of the considered view that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners is to be acceded in exercise of its power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th October, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 03/11/2025