(2026:JHHC:3439) 1 Cr. M.P. No.767 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.767 of 2023 ------ 1. Suresh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged about – 73 years, S/o – Late Hargobind Prasad, R/o- Shyampur, Ward No.13, Lalpur Bhader, kahalgaon, Bhader, P.O.- Bhagalpur, P.S.- Bhagalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar. 2. Manju Devi, aged about- 53 years, W/o- Suresh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged about- 73 years, R/o- Shyampur, Ward No. 13, Lalpur Bhader, kahalgaon, Bhader, P.O.- Bhagalpur, P.S.- Bhagalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kajal Kumari, aged about – 25 Years, D/o- Ram Chandra Chaudhary, W/o- Niranjan Kumar Jaiswal, R/o- Lalpur Bhader, kahalgaon, Bhader, P.O.- Bhagalpur, P.S.- Bhagalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar. At present- R/o- Village Kushdiha, P.O.- Moahnpur, P.S.- Mahagama, Dist- Godda, State- Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, 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 prosecution of Complaint Case No.1112 of 2021 including the order (2026:JHHC:3439) 2 Cr. M.P. No.767 of 2023 dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in the said case, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and passed the summoning order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 wherein in the facts of that case as the F.I.R. does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and there was merely a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture without mentioning even a single incident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceeding in respect of the appellants before it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Goverdhan Sao & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.3611 of 2022 dated 17.08.2023 and submits that in that case as there was no specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed any of the offences rather the allegations against them were vague and general and omnibus in nature of not coming to the rescue of the complainant when she was assaulted by her husband and apart from that there was (2026:JHHC:3439) 3 Cr. M.P. No.767 of 2023 no other allegation against them, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings of the complaint case concerned in respect of the petitioners of that case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the as allegations against the petitioners are false and general and omnibus in nature, hence, in this case also the entire criminal proceedings be quashed. It is next submitted that the marital discord has been given a colour of torture. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. 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 treating the complainant with cruelty by their wilful conduct which is of such a nature as was likely to cause danger to the life, limb and health both mental and physical of the complainant and also of causing harassment to the complainant with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their unlawful demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and a four-wheeler vehicle. It is next submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that on 11.11.2021, the petitioners as a part of the harassment to cause the complainant meet their unlawful demand, told that they will kill the complainant if she goes to her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that there is the video recording of the act of the petitioners demanding Rs.10,00,000/- and a four-wheeler being a Fortuner Vehicle and also telling that till the demand is fulfilled they will not allow the (2026:JHHC:3439) 4 Cr. M.P. No.767 of 2023 complainant to enter into her matrimonial house. In view of the video recording of the act of the petitioners committing the offence, the facts of this case are different from the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, hence, the ratio of those cases is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also submitted that besides that cursing the complainant repeatedly for giving birth to a female child, is also a wilful conduct on the part of the petitioners which can cause grave danger to the mental health of the complainant and there is direct and specific allegation in this respect also. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding Rs.10,00,000/- and a four-wheeler being a Fortuner Vehicle. There is also allegation against the petitioners that they harassed the complainant by not permitting her to come to her matrimonial house unless and until their unlawful demand is fulfilled and the petitioners did so, in order to coerce the complainant to fulfil their unlawful demand. The act of the petitioners in making the dowry demand and harassing the complainant in order to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand has been recorded by way of videography. So, these facts are entirely different from the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the (2026:JHHC:3439) 5 Cr. M.P. No.767 of 2023 learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. Further, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cursing the complainant repeatedly for giving birth to a female child and making arrangement for the second marriage of the husband of the complainant even during the subsistence of the marriage of the complainant with her husband. These are certainly wilful conduct of such a nature which can cause grave danger to the mental health of any woman. 9. In view of the above mentioned direct and specific allegations against the petitioners, which have also been recorded by way of videography, if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the same are sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of February, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 16/02/2026