(2026:JHHC:14500) 1 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.334 of 2023 ------ 1. Guddi Pandey, aged about 45 years, W/o Sri Sunil Dutt Pandey 2. Sunil Dutt Pandey @ Sunil Dutta, aged about 50 years, S/o Ram Vyas Pandey 3. Jeet Kumar @ Jeet, aged about 21 years, S/o Sri Sunil Dutt Pandey All R/o village – Gokul Dham Society, New Jail Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bhopal, Dist.- Bhopal (M.P.) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Saroj Tiwari, aged about 46 years, W/o Ram Prakash Tiwari, R/o village – Manaotand, Srikrishnapuri, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhansar, District- Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, 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 order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No.172 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.2175 of 2022 and the entire criminal proceedings of the said case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed to 18.05.2026 for consideration of charge. (2026:JHHC:14500) 2 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners respectively being the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (Devar) of the victim who is the daughter of the informant, took Rs.28,00,000/- at the time of marriage of the victim with her husband but their greed for dowry not satiated with the same; after fifteen (15) days of the marriage, they further demanded the dowry of a Maruti Car and indulged in harassment of the victim by inflicting physical and mental cruelty upon her only with the view, to coerce her to meet their said unlawful demand. The petitioner No.1 attempted to kill the victim by burning her. The informant, after coming to know about the said cruelty perpetrated by the petitioners, brought the victim back to Dhanbad. The husband of the victim came to Dhanbad and apologised for the cruelty perpetrated on the victim and assured that the victim will be treated properly in her matrimonial house and took her back to Bhopal in October, 2019. For ten (10) days, the victim was kept properly but again the harassment started with a view to coerce the victim to meet the said unlawful demand of the petitioners. 5. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the mother of the victim, police registered Dhansar P.S. Case No.172 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners along with the co-accused persons for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and basing upon the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that at the time of lodging of the (2026:JHHC:14500) 3 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 F.I.R., the victim was missing from the house of the informant at Dhanbad. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the informant against the petitioners are mainly against the husband of the victim and the victim has voluntarily left her matrimonial house. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of taking dowry worth Rs.28,00,000/- at the time of marriage of the victim with the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and who is also the brother of the petitioner No.3. It is next submitted that there is also allegation against the petitioners of further demanding the dowry of a Maruti Car and harassing the victim both mentally and physically with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of a Maruti Car and the same is sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. It is further submitted that the police in the investigation of the case found the allegations to be true. The contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false, is a defence which they can take during the trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 the defence of an accused person of any case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be (2026:JHHC:14500) 4 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the High Court as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 9. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they took dowry worth Rs.28,00,000/- described in detail in the F.I.R. itself, at the time of the marriage of the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who is also the brother of the petitioner No.3 at the time of his marriage with the victim. There is further allegation against the petitioners of demanding a Maruti Car and harassing the victim both physically and mentally with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful (2026:JHHC:14500) 5 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 demand of a Maruti Car. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 11. It is a settled principle of law 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 the charge under Section 216, 218 or under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be; 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 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) (2026:JHHC:14500) 6 Cr. M.P. No.334 of 2023 12. The police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true in the investigation of the case. No imputation is alleged against the conduct of police in carrying out the investigation. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of May, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 14/05/2026