(2025:JHHC:37271) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1878 of 2023 ------ 1. Vijay Anand age 72 years old, son of late T.R. Anand 2. Vanita Anand age 70 years old, W/O Vijay Anand 3. Vandana Anand age 43 years, D/O Vijay Anand All are resident of 14/456, Anand House, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, P.O. & P.S. Paschim Vihar – West, District Outer District, Delhi … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jyoti Anand D/o Jang Bahadur Sahgal, R/o R. K. Chatarjee lane, Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O. + P.S. Chas, District – Bokaro … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyansachi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vijayant Verma, 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R. in connection with Chas (Mahila) P.S. Case No.23 of 2022. 3. Though it is the admitted case of the petitioners that police after investigation of the case has submitted charge-sheet against all the (2025:JHHC:37271) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 petitioners and the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the charge-sheet has taken cognizance of the offence against all the three petitioners but the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them have not challenged the cognizance order and have only challenged the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, treated the informant with cruelty by harassing her to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of giving her daughter born out of the wedlock of her husband who is the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of the petitioner No.3; which unlawful demand was not agreed to by the informant. There is further allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the informant black and blue and specifically one of such incidents has been mentioned in the F.I.R. which took place on 29.01.2022 between 8:30 pm to 9:00 pm when the petitioners besides severely assaulting the informant, tore her clothes, kicked her on her abdomen leading to bleeding in her private part. They broke the phone of the informant and in order to kill the informant pressed her nose and mouth. Besides this particular incident, there is also allegation of the informant frequently being assaulted and when the informant became pregnant she was assaulted and was driven out from her matrimonial house; and she was forced to come to her paternal house and gave birth to a daughter on 19.11.2021. There is also allegation against the petitioners of snatching away the jewelry of the informant and ultimately driving her out with (2025:JHHC:37271) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 her two months’ old daughter from her matrimonial house because of the informant not giving in to the unlawful demand of the petitioners, to give her daughter to the petitioner No.3. On the basis of the written- report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro Mahila and Women and Child Protection Case No.23 of 2022 and took up the investigation of the case and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and baseless. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant and the petitioner No.3 is the married sister-in-law of the informant. It is next submitted that there is a delay of five months in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the cause of action for institution of the case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, hence, the case ought not have been instituted at Bokaro. The petitioner admitted the marriage between the informant and the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 but alleged that the informant is a short-tempered lady and is very aggressive in nature and she assaulted the petitioners on several occasions. It is next submitted that the petitioners lodged Paschim Vihar P.S. Case No.245 of 2022 and as a counter-blast, this case has been foisted after the informant received the notice of the Delhi Police under (2025:JHHC:37271) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with that case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2024 INSC 896 and submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the courts should consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence (s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurize the family of the husband to yield to the demands. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has masked the name of the parties, which has been reported in 2024 INSC 1014 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the recent trend of invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as a combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes which has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on several occasions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Digambar & Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2024 INSC 1019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its (2025:JHHC:37271) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 own judgment in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana & Another reported in 2024 INSC 953 to deal with the ingredients of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and whether the same are attracted through vague allegations raised by the complainant (wife). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 INSC 687 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that once the complainant decided to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the F.I.R./complaint is very well drafted with all necessary pleadings and the complainant in such case would ensure that the averments made in the F.I.R./complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. So, in such cases, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the F.I.R/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not rather the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar (2025:JHHC:37271) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025 paragraph-20 of which reads as under:- “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has framed the steps which should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (2025:JHHC:37271) 7 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners then relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay D. Jain & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2025 INSC 1168 wherein in paragraph-10 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ingredients of the offence of cruelty as mentioned in the Explanation (a) of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in MANU/SC/0377/2024 and submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of State of A.P. vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah reported in 2009 INSC 498 in which case in turn, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its judgment in the case of State of Haryana & Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 SCC (Supp.) 1 335 and also in 1990:INSC:363 and submits that this is a case which is covered by the illustration 5 and 7 mentioned in paragraph-102 of the judgment of State of Haryana & Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others (supra). Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 13. Learned Spl. 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 petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that so far as the contention of the petitioners that the case is not maintainable (2025:JHHC:37271) 8 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 at Bokaro, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- “16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.” and submits that the law is well settled that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the said contention of the petitioners is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding as undisputedly the informant has taken shelter at Bokaro, after being driven out from her matrimonial home. 14. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submit that as admitted by the petitioners in paragraph-19 of this Cr.M.P. where the petitioners have categorically averred that the petitioners lodged the F.I.R. vide Paschim Vihar P.S. Case No.245 of 2022 against the informant. But the said case was a false and motivated one. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 draws the attention of the Court to page No.38 of the Supplementary Affidavit and submits that in the said case, the Sub (2025:JHHC:37271) 9 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 Inspector of Police- namely Mr Vijay, of Paschim Vihar Police Station has submitted a report regarding the gold bangles which were alleged to have been stolen by the informant, in fact belongs to the daughter-in- law of the maternal uncle of the informant namely Aayu Anand and she is the rightful owner of the bangles; which the petitioners claim that the informant committed theft of from the petitioners; even though the petitioners are no way related with the said Aayu Anand- the daughter- in-law of the maternal uncle of the informant. It is next submitted that the institution of a false case by the in-laws of the informant itself is an act of cruelty about which the evidence will be brought on record in detail during the trial of the case. 15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the conduct of the petitioners is laid bare by the audacity of the petitioners by misbehaving with none else than the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police namely Sunil Kumar and that a D.D. Entry was lodged as is evident from the G.D. Report obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act; annexed as Annexure-3 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 10.01.2025 filed in this case. 16. So far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 draws the attention of this Court towards paragraph-4 of the said Supplementary Affidavit and submits that on 30.01.2022 the informant after being driven out from her matrimonial house with her two months’ old baby went to the P.C.R. (2025:JHHC:37271) 10 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 Booth and as she was new in Delhi and carrying her two months’ old baby who was suffering from fever, for getting the F.I.R. lodged but she was advised to go to her parental house at Bokaro and take steps to save her life and lodge the F.I.R. from there only. As advised, the informant came to Bokaro and went to local Police Station at Chas, Bokaro. There the officers in the Police Station said that as it is an outstation case, so, they cannot do anything for her. In the meanwhile, while she was searching for a lawyer, her father got seriously ill. Besides her husband used to call her and used to say that he will get everything done in right way and the relationship between them will be settled, so that is the reason with the hope that good relationship with her husband will be restored, there was delay and in this respect, the informant has filed the photocopies of the medical certificate of his father as well as the WhatsApp Chat between the informant and her husband. Hence, it is submitted that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. is well explained. It is next submitted that there for the same cannot be a reason for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 17. It is further submitted that unlike the facts of the cases, the judgements of which were placed by the petitioners, where general and omnibus allegations were made; in this case there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the informant with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioners to give her baby daughter to the petitioner No.3 and on account of failure of the informant to meet their unlawful demand, harassment was meted out (2025:JHHC:37271) 11 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 to her which included frequent assault including specific instance given. Hence, it is submitted that as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and the same was also found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case, hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 18. 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 unlike the facts of the case, the judgments of which have been relied upon by the petitioners, this is not a case of general and omnibus allegations. This is a case where there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of subjecting the informant to cruelty by harassing her, by assaulting her severely on specific occasions with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand and of giving her child to the petitioner No.3 and their willful conduct was of such a nature to cause grave injury and danger to the life and limb and health to both mental and physical of the complainant by kicking on her abdomen, causing bleeding from her private parts, by forcibly closing her nose and mouth by putting pressure upon the same, with the intention to kill her. There is also allegation against the petitioners of first lodging a case against the informant making at least one false allegation that she has committed theft of gold bangles from her matrimonial house though ultimately the same was found to be the bangles belonging the daughter-in-law of the uncle of the informant (2025:JHHC:37271) 12 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 and the court concerned has released the said bangles in favour of the daughter-in-law of her maternal uncle. The nature of the petitioners is also apparent from their conduct in daring to misbehave with the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police in connection with the case instituted by them against the informant and the same also speaks volume about the magnitude of their ill will against the informant and also about the treatment that could have been meted by them to the informant. 19. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners being entirely different from the facts of this case as in those cases except the judgment of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), the allegation of commission of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was general and omnibus in nature. Therefore the ratio of those judgments is not applicable to the facts of this case. 20. Now, so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra) is concerned, in respect of step (1), this Court has observed that the materials relied upon by the petitioners/accused persons that they first instituted a case against the informant, part of which was found to be false so far as the allegation of theft of gold bangles by the complainant is concerned and during the investigation of the case the gold bangles were found to be that of the (2025:JHHC:37271) 13 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 daughter-in-law of the maternal uncle of the informant; do not rule out the assertions contained in the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. That takes care of the step (2). Hence, this Court is of the considered view that as discussed above since the averments made in the F.I.R. and the materials that were collected during the investigation of the case; which culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet, are considered to be true in their entirety then the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 21. It is a settled principle of law that a case and counter-case can go together as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. So, merely on the ground that this is a counter-blast case that is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 22. So far as the contention of the petitioners that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., is concerned the same has been explained by the informant in her Supplementary Affidavit as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement. Otherwise also, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. by itself cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding more so when the offence involved arises out of a matrimonial dispute. 23. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the cause of action for the occurrence having been taken place at Delhi, therefore, the police in Bokaro has no jurisdiction to entertain the F.I.R. is concerned, (2025:JHHC:37271) 14 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 the undisputed fact remains that the informant after being driven away from her matrimonial home in Delhi on the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the petitioners as well as her husband. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 24. The fact remains that the police after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet and though cognizance has already been taken. It is settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of (2025:JHHC:37271) 15 Cr. M.P. No.1878 of 2023 charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge- sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) that the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge. 25. Framing of charge is yet to take place. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, prayed for by the petitioners is to be acceded by in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 26. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 23/12/2025