[2025:JHHC:32784] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1760 of 2019 ------ Arvind Kumar, Aged 51 yrs, s/o Sri Ram Narain Sinha, Resident of 68, Hatia Station Road, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt Rita Devi, D/o of Sri Ramjee Mahto R/o of Netaji Nagar, Refugee Colony, 8th Line, Kantatoli, P.O.: Kanta Toli, P.S.: Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, 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 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.08.2015 of the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.142 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2130 of 2015. [2025:JHHC:32784] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2019 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the informant, was not having any intention for procreation out of his wedlock with the informant and dropped the informant at her paternal house and did not take her back and avoided taking her to her matrimonial house and ultimately, induced her family to keep the informant in her house. There is an allegation against the family members of the petitioner who have been described as ‘Sasuralwale’ of demanding Rs.2,00,000/-. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.142 of 2015 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner and his father and mother who are not parties to the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father and mother of the petitioner namely Ram Narain Sinha and Rita Devi have died. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of demand of dowry nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of harassing the informant with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. It is then submitted that there no allegation against the petitioner of committing any willful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limbs or health of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted [2025:JHHC:32784] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2019 that 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. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI & Others Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh reported in (2003) 6 SCC 175, para-20 of which reads as under:- ‘’20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable [2025:JHHC:32784] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2019 offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.’’ (Emphasis supplied) and submits that it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. At the stage of lodging the FIR, it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given, suspects the commission of any cognizable offence and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. 6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that since the informant has stated that by the words of the petitioner, she was afraid that the accused persons of the case will kill her. So, this will amount to wilful conduct as defined in Clause- ‘a’ of the definition of cruelty as mentioned in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 the undisputed fact remains that there is absolutely no allegation of demand of dowry or of any unlawful demand, in any manner by the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was not interested in procreation out of his wedlock with the informant and he was telling that the informant go away from his house and he himself was not living in his house. This, in the considered opinion of this Court even if they are considered to be true in their entirety, is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of any demand of dowry against the petitioner, the offence punishable under Sections [2025:JHHC:32784] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2019 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also not made out against the petitioner. As none of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi is made out against the petitioner, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.142 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2130 of 2015 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.142 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2130 of 2015 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 10. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 22.10.2019 is vacated. 11. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of October, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 03/11/2025