[2025:JHHC:33343] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2075 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2075 of 2022 ------ Binay Harodia @ Vinay Harodia, aged about 39 yrs. S/o Deo Prasad Agarwal, House No. 169B, Katras Road, In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Matkuria, P.O. & P.S. Matkuria, Dist. Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khushbu Havodia, D/o Binod Dalniya, R/o In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Bankmore, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate Ms. Shabana Perween, 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 the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code differing from Final Form submitted by the police against the petitioner on the [2025:JHHC:33343] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2075 of 2022 basis of the materials available in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary, which are the statements of the different witnesses stated before the Investigating Officer of the case. 3. It is submitted at the Bar that the case is next fixed on 19.11.2025 for consideration of framing of charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harshad Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated 12.07.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No.284 of 2017, submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the court is not supposed to act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or to act as a post-office by accepting the findings of police report but if the court disagrees or differs with the closure report; then, it is required to assign cogent reasons for not accepting or disagreeing with the findings of the police. It is next submitted that several witnesses have stated before the Investigating Officer of the case, including the son of the informant/opposite party No.2 and the petitioner that they have not seen any incriminating conduct of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the informant/opposite party No.2, by a decree of divorce but the same has since been dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the dismissal order of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce of the petitioner, before this Court and the same is sub judice. It is further submitted that the informant/opposite party No.2 has given in writing [2025:JHHC:33343] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2075 of 2022 acknowledging her mistake of saying that she will commit suicide and has undertaken not to repeat the same. Hence, it is submitted that under such circumstances, the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. 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 this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the witnesses whose statement appears in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 namely Khushboo Harodia, Binod Dalmia, Rajshekhar Dalmia and Manju Devi respectively have categorically stated about the petitioner that he is harassing the informant/opposite party No.2 by coercing her to meet his unlawful demand of more money, to be brought by the informant from his brother and indulged in heinous acts by falsely alleging and going to the extent of attributing the illicit relationship of the informant with other males. It is next submitted that there is also allegation against the petitioner of taking photograph of the informant/opposite party No.2 while she was naked and sleeping after removing her clothes and the petitioner is threatening to make them viral unless the informant/opposite party No.2 and her family members meet the unlawful demand of the petitioner of more money to be brought by the informant; hence, the same is sufficient to constituent the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. [2025:JHHC:33343] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2075 of 2022 6. 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 in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients for constituting the said offence are as under:- (1) A woman was married; (2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in inter alia- (i) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand; (ii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation or her husband. 7. Now coming to the fact of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner as has been mentioned in the statement of the witnesses recorded in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 of the case- diary that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by harassing the informant/opposite party No.2 to coerce her to meet his unlawful demand of more money to be brought by the informant/opposite party No.2 from her brother whereas the brother of the informant/opposite party No.2 was unable to meet the same because of his poor financial condition. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that if the statement of the witnesses recorded in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 of the case-diary is considered to be true in its entirety, then the same is [2025:JHHC:33343] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2075 of 2022 sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad be allowed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 10/11/2025