2026:JHHC:16762 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2021 ------ Girja Shankar Mishra, aged about 59 years, S/o Bishwanath Mishra, at present R/o – Flat No. 2941, Green Rose Vijaya Garden Baridih, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. – Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East (Jharkhand). .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kamalini Pati, W/O Late Haradhan Pati, R/o Anugrah Narayan Colony, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. – Mango, District – Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). …. .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Verma, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None. ------ J U D G M E N T CAV On Dated:14.05.2026 Pronounced On: 10.06.2026 It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that original petitioner no. 1 namely, Sudhirbala Mishra has died during pendency of this criminal revision and her petition has been abated vide order dated 02.02.2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Though notice has been received by the son of the opposite party no. 2, but nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-F.T.C. (Offence against Women), 2026:JHHC:16762 2 East Singhbhum in S.T. No. 208 of 2015 arising out of C/1 Case No. 271/2013 registered for the offence under Sections 304 (B) & 498-A of I.P.C., whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner and his mother (since deceased). 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that an F.I.R. being Mango P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1467 of 2012 was registered on 30.05.2012 against the Bharat Bhusan Mishra, Girija Shankar Mishra and Sudhir Bala Mishra by the informant Kamalini Pati, in which final form has been submitted against Girija Shankar Mishra and Sudhir Bala Mishra due to lack of evidence and the same was protested by filing complaint-cum-protest petition by the informant / complainant being C/1 Case No. 271/2013 with an allegation stating therein that the Kalpana Mishra was younger daughter of the complainant and was married with Bharat Bhushan Mishra on 06.05.2007 as per the Hindu customs and rites and at the time of marriage, a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle, Almirah, T.V. Freeze, 6 tola gold and other household articles were gifted to Bharat Bhusan Mishra and thereafter her daughter went to her Matrimonial house and started to stay with Bharat Bhusan Mishra (husband), mother-in-law and brother-in-law 2026:JHHC:16762 3 respectively where she gave birth to two children. However, subsequently, all accused persons have started to torture her daughter physically and mentally in connection with demand of money, to which the complainant has shown her inability to pay the same since they had already paid one lakh fifty thousand rupees and other articles at the time of marriage ceremony. Even then the accused persons tortured the daughter of the complainant in different ways. Therefore, an application was given by Kalpana Mishra (deceased) before the women cell of police station Sakchi in the month of February, 2010, in which a compromise has taken place with the intervention of the parties, in which accused persons assured to not torture her further and live with them in the Flat No. 16, Neel Kantha Tower, Post Office Road, Mango, but after some day again they started to torture her in similar way. The accused persons mounted pressure upon daughter of the informant / complainant to pay money for purchase of flat but in the meantime, deceased was conceived of 3-4 weeks. The accused persons are mounting pressure for abortion but she did not agree. The accused persons were making demand of Rs. 3 Lakh for purchasing a new flat. The complainant party tried to materialize the dispute, but the accused persons were adamant on fulfillment of demand. Therefore, it has been alleged that the accused person have abetted her to commit 2026:JHHC:16762 4 suicide. It has further been alleged that the investigation officer has not investigated the case properly. On the basis of evidence of the Inquiry Witnesses, the SDJM, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance finding the case prima facie under Sections 304 (B) / 498-A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his mother (since deceased) and the case of was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. dated 03.09.2019 for discharge from this case and the learned trial court after hearing the parties has passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 in S.T. No. 208 of 2015, rejecting the application of the petitioner, which has been assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case was instituted against the three accused persons i.e. mother-in-law of deceased Sudhirbala Mishra (since deceased), Girja Shankar Mishra (petitioner) and Bharat Bhusan Mishra (husband of the deceased), but only the husband of the deceased was charged for the offence under Section 306 and 498A of the I.P.C. After conclusion of trial, in S.T. No. 502 of 2012, the husband of the deceased has been acquitted for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and in view of the suicidal note left by the deceased, the husband of the deceased was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. It is further submitted 2026:JHHC:16762 5 that since the husband of the deceased has already been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 I.P.C., so this petitioner, who happened to be elder brother-in-law of the deceased, cannot be charged for any offence. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the overall materials and passed the reasoned order, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. Hence, this revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. It appears that the learned trial court has considered this point while rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioner with observation as follows:- “The plea of the petitioners that since husband has been acquitted for the offence U/s. 306 of IPC, so, these accused petitioners are liable to be discharged is not acceptable as accused Bharat Bhushan husband faced trial and after going through the evidence of witnesses, he was convicted for the offence U/s. 498A of IPC. The plea of the defence that evidence of that sessions trial has to be considered for discharge the 2026:JHHC:16762 6 accused from this case is also not acceptable since the accused/petitioner had not faced trial in that case and no evidence recorded in their presence so legally the evidence of witness in S.T. No. 502/2012 cannot be looked into the account to discharge the accused petitioners from this case. It is true that mother-in-law is of old age, suffering from disease and allegations against the accused petitioners are general but at this stage, it is not possible to decide without taking evidence that allegation against them is false.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any substantial material which conclusively establishes his innocence at the present stage of the proceeding. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any substance in the point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as well as no merits in this revision, which stand dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 10/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026