[2025:JHHC:38559] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2363 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2363 of 2017 ------ 1. Edwin Peter Toppo S/o D.N Dorman @ Digender Nath Dorman, 2. Lalita Toppo @ L. Dorman W/o D.N. Dorman @ Digender Nath Dorman, 3. D.N. Dorman @ Digender Nath Dorman, S/o Late Purno Sashi Dorman, 4. Dipti Roja Toppo @ D.R.D. Toppo D/o D.N. Dorman @ Digender Nath Dorman All R/o Qt. No. A-51, Sector-4, Dhurwa, Near St. Thomas School, P.S.- Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rashmi Kujur, D/O Franshis Xavier Kujur @ Mrs. P.J. Kujur R/o- Inderprasth Colony, Jora Talab P.O. + P.S- Bariatu, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate Mrs. Sweety Topno, 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 06.03.2017 passed by the [2025:JHHC:38559] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2363 of 2017 learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2603 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials available in the record for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the husband of the complainant, petitioner No.2 being the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 being the father-in-law and the petitioner No.4 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant, treated the complainant with cruelty by harassing her to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of a new Maruti car and jewellery. There is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that during the subsistence of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant-opposite party No.2; particularly on 08.06.2013 because of the failure of the complainant-opposite party No.2 to meet the unlawful demand of a Maruti car, she was harassed by being driven out from her matrimonial house and was told that unless she brings the Maruti car, she will not be allowed to reside in her matrimonial house and on 20.06.2013 when the complainant with her mother went to her matrimonial house, the petitioner No.1 harassed the complainant by telling that under no circumstances, he wants to stay with the complainant-opposite party No.2 and told the complainant- opposite party No.2 to forget him and that there was no relation between them. There is also direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners in furtherance of their common [2025:JHHC:38559] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2363 of 2017 intention with the co-accused persons, were abusing and assaulting the complainant by locking her in her room, ill-treating her and by taunting her by telling that she has come from the family of beggars. They were also harassing the complainant by preventing her from talking with her neighbours and her paternal family members and all this was done to coerce the complainant to meet the unlawful demand of jewellery and a Maruti car. It was told to the complainant that if the complainant will not bring the Maruti car and jewellery, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 shall be solemnized with someone else. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the said offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant-opposite party No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 72 of 2014 vide the judgment dated 08.06.2015 and the complaint having been filed thereafter on 06.10.2016. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding of the same is liable to be quashed. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the complainant-opposite party No.2 has voluntarily went away from her matrimonial house. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. [2025:JHHC:38559] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2363 of 2017 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 petitioners and submits that the complaint involving the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is also maintainable after divorce, if the offences committed pertain to cruelty during the subsistence of the marriage with specific allegations. It is next submitted that in this case, though the complaint was filed after divorce but the offences committed were during the subsistence of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant-opposite party No.2 and the delay has suitably explained. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, the statement of the solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witness are considered to be true in their entirety, then, the offences in respect of which sufficient material has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to proceed against the petitioners, are, in fact, made out. Hence, it is submitted that the sole ground of the petitioners that the marriage has been dissolved between the parties, is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 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 if the FIR alleges cruelty post-divorce or lacks specific details of pre-divorce cruelty, it becomes vexatious for [2025:JHHC:38559] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2363 of 2017 trial and can be quashed but on the other hand if the allegations made in the complaint after divorce pertains to the cruelty during the subsistence of the marriage between the parties with specific allegation merely because subsequently, there was a divorce that does not obliterate the offences committed during the subsistence of the marriage; hence, such complaint is maintainable. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment that the allegations made against the petitioners are direct and specific and it relates to the period during the subsistence of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant-opposite party No.2. It is not even the case of the petitioners that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 05/01/2026