(2026:JHHC:17434) 1 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.772 of 2025 ------ 1. Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Late Ramlal Singh 2. Usha Devi @ Usha Singh, aged about 67 years, wife of Late Ramlal Singh 3. Rupesh Singh, aged about 43 years, son of Late Ramayan Singh All are residents of Village Ded Gawon, P.O. Jamalpur, P.S. Dhina, District Chandauli, State Uttar Pradesh. 4. Hareram Singh, son of Late Vijay Singh, aged about 38 years, resident of Sonbarsa, P.O. Baraki Kharari, P.S. Baraki Kharari, District- Rohtas, State- Bihar … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Neha Kumari @ Puja Kumari, wife of Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh and daughter of Arun Singh, resident of Village Uttari Shivpuri, Okani-II, P.O. & P.S. Sadar (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. Ms. Malsi Pathak, AC to P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik (2026:JHHC:17434) 2 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 15.12.2022 passed in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.2299 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 being the husband, petitioner No.2 being the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 being the brother-in-law (Bhainsur) and the petitioner No.4 being the relative of the uncle of the husband of the informant, treated the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- besides taking dowry at the time of marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the informant. There is further separate allegation against the petitioner No.4 of outraging the modesty of the informant. 4. On the basis of the written-report dated 09.10.2019 submitted by the informant, police registered Hazaribagh Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2019 and took up the investigation of the case and during the investigation, notice under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners but they did not respond to the notice rather they absconded. During the investigation of the case, non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was also made against the petitioners and the attachment order of their property was (2026:JHHC:17434) 3 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 also passed. The petitioners were released on bail during the investigation of the case. The police, after investigation of the case, found the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 along with Ramlal Singh- who is since deceased, having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and found that the petitioner No.4 has committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners along with the said Ramlal Singh. 5. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; inter alia against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the informant filed Complaint Case No.437 of 2019 on 02.03.2019 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in which the petitioner No.4 was not even the proposed accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences against the petitioner No.3; in the said complaint Case. It is next submitted that since the informant has not mentioned about filing of the said Complaint Case No.437 of 2019 in this F.I.R, hence, on this score alone the F.I.R. is to be quashed, because the same amounts to suppression of material facts. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the (2026:JHHC:17434) 4 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudha Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:371 (Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2020) dated 08.01.2026; wherein in the facts of that case, where the informant of that case filed a complaint case for the self-same allegations, which has been made in the subsequent First Information Report and the subsequent First Information Report only because the proceedings of the complaint case was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court; suppressing the material fact of stay of the proceedings for the self-same allegation, the F.I.R was instituted. This Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraphs-13 and 26 of which read as under:- “ 13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge- sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC (2026:JHHC:17434) 5 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 481]). 26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis supplied) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Agarwal & Others vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524, para-20 and 21 of which reads as under:- “ 20. Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants. 21. We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in the Section 156(3) CrPC application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 CrPC and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice.” (Emphasis supplied) and considered the undisputed fact that in that case much prior to lodging of this F.I.R. on 03.08.2020 though for the self-same allegation made against the petitioners, the informant filed Complaint Case No.613 of 2019, the further proceedings of which was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court prior to lodging of the F.I.R. on 10.06.2020, this Court was of the view that the sole intention of the (2026:JHHC:17434) 6 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 informant of that case was of utilising the institution of justice for unjust means and the F.I.R. was lodged to materially improve her earlier version in totality and such suppression of the material fact amounts to abuse of process of law and quashed the subsequent F.I.R, which was lodged after the proceedings of the complaint case for the self-same occurrence was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in this case also since the informant has failed to mention filing of the earlier complaint case, therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned 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 unlike the case of Sudha Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), in this case till before filing of the First Information Report, the proceedings of the complaint case was not stayed by any court. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. in this case, is not for the self-same occurrence in respect of which complaint case was filed. It is next submitted that the offence punishable under Section 498 A is a continuing offence. There were subsequent developments after filing of the earlier complaint which has been distinctly mentioned in the F.I.R. of this case; relating to the specific acts committed by the petitioner No. 4 is also the allegation of treatment of cruelty that was also perpetrated upon the complainant-informant after institution of the earlier (2026:JHHC:17434) 7 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 complaint Case by her. The offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was not involved in the complaint case. The petitioner No.4 was not even an accused in the complaint case. Hence, it is submitted that merely because an earlier complaint case has not been mentioned in the First Information Report; as Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. provides the procedure to be followed when the complaint and police investigation is made in respect of the same offence, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed on the ground that a complaint case was also filed for the same offence. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the record, this Court finds that the F.I.R. is not exactly for the self-same occurrence for which complaint was filed. In the complaint, there were allegations which were made up to 14.02.2019. In the F.I.R., there were description of the subsequent occurrences also including the totally separate occurrence of commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner No.4 which was also found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case. Unlike the case of Sudha Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), in this case there was no stay order passed by any court of law before lodging of the F.I.R. vide Hazaribagh Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2019; in respect of the earlier complaint Case. (2026:JHHC:17434) 8 Cr. M.P. No.772 of 2025 10. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the provision of law in shape of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered view that merely because for the self-same offence, a complaint and police investigation was going on, even though, the petitioners did not participate in the investigation by not responding to the notice under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C. rather they preferred to abscond, in view of the fact that the F.I.R. contains subsequent occurrences of perpetrating cruelty upon the informant as also the commission of the separate offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by a separate accused person; which were found to be true during the investigation by the police, the sole ground of the petitioners that the filing of earlier complaint case was not mentioned in the F.I.R., is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim order dated 24.07.2025, is vacated. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of June, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 22/06/2026