2026:JHHC:17570 Cr. Revision No.996 of 2018 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 996 of 2018 …… 1. Ravi Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 47 years 2. Shishir Kumar Jaiswal @ Shishir Kumar, aged about 40 years. Both sons of late Devendra Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Bagodar, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raghunath Prasad Jaiswal @ Raghu Jaiswal, son of Hira Lal Jaiswal, resident of Kumar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kishor, Adv. Mr. Shiv Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 12.05.2026 Pronounced on 17.06.2026 1. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party No.2. 2. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P for State. 3. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 4491 of 2013, whereby and 2026:JHHC:17570 Cr. Revision No.996 of 2018 Page | 2 whereunder an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 4. As per F.I.R., it appears that one Raghunath Prasad Jaiswal @ Raghu Jaiswal lodged a complaint petition being Complaint No.2329 of 2013 before the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh which was sent to concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of case and investigation. Accordingly, Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.976 of 2013 dated 20.12.2013 was registered for the offences under Sections 406/420/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the five accused persons. 6. It is alleged that after negotiation of marriage between the daughter of the informant and accused Shishir Kumar Jaiswal, ring ceremony was held on 04.08.2013 and various gifts and articles was presented to the bridegroom side, but thereafter, they again insisted to see the daughter of the informant and also demanded Rs.7,50,000/- and other articles as dowry, otherwise the marriage shall not be solemnized. It 2026:JHHC:17570 Cr. Revision No.996 of 2018 Page | 3 is also alleged that about Rs.3,00,000/- expenditure incurred at the time of engagement ceremony which was also not returned by the accused persons. Therefore, for the offences under Sections 406/407 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the accused persons. 7. I have gone through the impugned order whereby the learned Trial Court relying upon the principle laid down in the case of State vs. S. Bangrappa, (2001) 1 SCC 369 that Magistrate has only to consider generally the materials placed before him by the I.O. in considering the sufficiency of ground of proceeding against the accused. The truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Therefore, rejected the discharge application. 8. From plain reading of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider even the ingredients of offences proposed to be charged against the petitioners and whether the materials collected during investigation and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute the offences. Therefore, a non-speaking order has been passed without recording any 2026:JHHC:17570 Cr. Revision No.996 of 2018 Page | 4 reasons. 9. In view of above, the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 is set aside and learned Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the discharge application filed by the petitioners under Section 262 of the B.N.S.S. after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both side and discussing the materials collected during investigation constitutes the proposed offences for framing the charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:17/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On:19/06/2026