1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 360 of 2020 …. 1. Deepak Ruhidas @ Dipak Ruidas, aged about 34 years, son of Naresh Rohidas 2. Naresh Ruhidas @ Naresh Ruidas, aged about 55 years, son of Late Bagal Rohidas 3. Arti Ruhidas @ Arati Ruidas, aged about 50 years, wife of Naresh Rohidas 4. Jhuma Devi @ Jhuma Dhara @ Jhuma Ruidas, aged about 42 years, wife of Sunil 5. Lalan Rohidas @ Lalan Ruidas, aged about 30 years, son of Gopal Rohidas 6. Dilip Rohidas @ Dilip Ruidas, aged about 48 years, son of Kajal Rohidas 7. Pradeep Rohidas @ Pradip Ruidas, aged about 33 years, son of Naresh Rohidas All are resident of Kajra, PO- Kajragram, PS-Andal, District- West Burdwan (W. B.) …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jayanti Ruidas, wife of Dipak Ruidas, Daughter of Sri Sapan Ruidas, Resident of Village-Deviyana, PO- Deviyana, PS-Nirsa, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand ..… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A. P. P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate …… 15/20.03.2025 The instant Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 passed in S. T. No. 136 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with Nirsa P. S. Case No. 224 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 2403 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 307, 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It appears that FIR was lodged giving rise to Nirsa P. S. Case No. 224 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 2403 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 307, 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of Complaint Case No. 1513 of 2018 filed by the complainant- opposite party no. 2, Jayanti Ruidas in the Court of Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad for institution the case under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. 3. It has been alleged that the complainant- opposite party no. 2, Jayanti Ruidas was subjected to dowry and assault by her in laws members including her husband- Deepak Ruidas even after she had given birth of a child, she has been neglected and entire expenses were borne by her father and finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home by the petitioners after assaulting her alongwith her child. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 5. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not confining on the merit of the case so far as under Sections 498(A), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, however he is arguing only on the point of institution of case for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is 3 submitted that allegation of demand of dowry and torture are false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1, Deepak Ruhidas @ Dipak Ruidas is husband, petitioner no. 2, Naresh Ruhidas @ Naresh Ruidas is father in-law, the petitioner no. 3, Arti Ruhidas @ Arati Ruidas is mother in-law, the petitioner no. 4, Jhuma Devi @ Jhuma Dhara @ Jhuma Ruidas is married sister in-law (Nanad) and the petitioner no. 5, Lalan Rohidas @ Lalan Ruidas, the petitioner no. 6, Dilip Rohidas @ Dilip Ruidas, aged about 48 years, son of Kajal Rohidas and the petitioner no. 7, Pradeep Rohidas @ Pradip Ruidas are the Devar. It is submitted that no injury report has been produced by the complainant- opposite party no. 2, Jayanti Ruidas, even after examination by the Investigating Officer after loding of the FIR and hence, no case for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petiotners. It is further submitted that no dowry alleged by the Complainant was demanded by the petitioners and as such, the impugned order may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. However, it is submitted that no injury report has been brought on record by the complainant- opposite party no. 2, but there is direct allegation against all the petitioners for assaulting the complainant and for demanding dowry. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner no. 1, Deepak Ruhidas @ Dipak Ruidas and well as the petitioner no. 7, Pradeep Rohidas @ Pradip Ruidas had assaulted and tortured the complainant- opposite party no. 2 and the father of the complainant- opposite party no. 2 had incurred Rs. 10,00,000/- in marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party 4 no. 2. Even after, they were demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- additional dowry and finally they had assaulted and ousted her from the matrimonial home on 01.05.2018. 9. As the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument on the point of application of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court is not discussing the case on merit as it would be the subject matter of trial so far as offences under Sections 498(A), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned. 10. I have gone through the case diary and it appears that no injury report has been brought on record by the prosecution and thus this Court is of the view that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out for the present against these petitioners. 11. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 passed in S. T. No. 136 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- XVI, Dhanbad is liable to be set aside to the extent that charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners for the present. So far as trial under Sections 498(A), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the same shall be the subject matter of the trial. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 passed in S. T. No. 136 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad is set aside to the extent that charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners for the present and the matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, 5 Dhanbad/ or his Successor Court with the direction that the instant case may be transmitted to the Court of the competent jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction of Nirsa Police Station. 13. 13. However, it will be desirable that the parties may make efforts for mediation/conciliation, if there is such possibility. 14. This Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2020 is allowed in part with direction indicated hereinabove. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/