2026:JHHC:19079 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 522 of 2022 -------- 1. Reena Sahu, aged about 43 years, daughter of Awadesh Prasad Gupta, wife of Ravindra Kumar Shaw, residing near Hanuman Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Dhanbad, Post-Dhanbad, Police Station-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad 2. Ms. Neha Kashyap, aged about 39 years, daughter of Awadesh Prasad Gupta, wife of Nand Gupta, residing near Ashok Cinema, Aarti Kunj, Ranchi Road, Ramgah, Marar, Post-Ramgarh, Police Station- Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shivani Kumari, wife of Ritesh Ranjan, presently rediding at B1, Type, 3 AMD, residential complex, Khasmahal, Charkhambha, Post- Golmuri, Police Station-Parsudih, District-East Singhbhum … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mr. Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O. P. No.2 : Mr. Ripunjay Jha, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 11.06.2026 Pronounced on 30/06/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ripunjay Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18.05.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.563/2022 in S.T. Case No. 258 of 2022 passed by learned A.J.C.-XV-cum-F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Ranchi whereby and whereunder the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioners from the charges leveled against them has been rejected. 2026:JHHC:19079 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision as per written report of the informant Shivani Kumari is that she was married on 26.11.2014 in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs with Ritesh Ranjan @ Ranjeet. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, her husband was running a business of coal transportation by his own two dumpers and he was also owning two houses and rent from shops. It is alleged that at the time of her marriage, her father has given as per demand of in-laws and husband Rs.11,00,000/- cash, jewellery worth Rs.5,00,000/- and other household utensils like Freeze, T.V., Furniture, Kitchen utensils etc. It is alleged that when she joined her matrimonial home after marriage, her mother-in-law Lila Devi and both sisters-in-law Reena Sahu @ Arti and Neha Kachhap @ Guddi were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and started saying that your father is very rich person and running 10-12 trucks and also owner of factory, but he has given nothing and cheated them. They were also using indecent language against her and frequently tormenting. It is further alleged that after ten days of marriage, she along with her husband went for honeymoon at different places in Rajasthan, Punjab, Delhi, Kashmir etc. In the course of that trip also her husband asked the informant that his dumper has become old and asked to bring a dumper from her father. Due to this reason, some scuffle took place with her husband and her trip of honeymoon was spoiled. Her husband used to abuse her on instigation of her mother and sisters. It is further alleged that after 2026:JHHC:19079 3 returning from honeymoon, informant became pregnant, which was also objected by her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. She was put over burdened by household domestic works and the maid servant was also removed. Due to heavy workload from morning to night, her health started deteriorating. She met with a lady doctor, who advised for complete rest, otherwise delivery would be caesarean. Due to high medical expenses also, her husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law started taunting her, then her father took Vidai and brought her at Ranchi, where she gave birth to a female child on 04.09.2015 at Hill View Nursing Home. It is alleged that on 05.09.2015, her mother-in- law, husband and Mami Saas came to visit at hospital and again taunted her for giving birth to a female child. She again went to her matrimonial home after Deepawali, but again demand for dumper and harassment and torture both physical and mental due to birth of a female child was continued. Again, she was put under heavy workload and she has to take care of her daughter also. In spite of that, she was abused and assaulted by her mother-in-law by catching her hair. It is further alleged that informant’s father-in-law was already paralyzed and his both daughters were claiming share in his property and scuffling with him. In the meantime, her husband left the informant at her parental home directing her to bring dumper from her father. On occasion of death of her father-in-law on 25.03.2016, she went to her matrimonial home, but she was subjected to torture due to non- fulfillment of the demand of the accused persons. At that time, she was 2026:JHHC:19079 4 pregnant and some medicine was administered to her by her husband and mother-in-law and she was also physically assaulted, due to which her pregnancy was terminated. Again, she was brought to her parental home on 22.07.2017 due to her illness, and since then, she is residing at her paternal home. Again, she was directed by her husband to bring dumper, while returning otherwise there is no necessity to come back. 4. On the basis of above information, an F.I.R. being Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 612 of 2018 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A/313/34 of the I.P.C. against above named four accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A, 313/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where S.T. Case No. 258 of 2022 has been registered. 5. The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, which has been rejected and the same has been assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are married sisters-in-law of the informant, who were married prior to a decade of the solemnization of the marriage of the informant with their brother Ritesh Ranjan @ Ranjeet. It is further submitted that the main witness in this case is the informant herself and in the F.I.R. itself, she has stated nothing against the petitioners except some general and omnibus allegations that these petitioners were 2026:JHHC:19079 5 instigating her brother for bringing new dumpers by his wife from her father. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 was married on 02.05.2004 and since then she is residing with her husband at Dhanbad and was working as Assistant Teacher at Kids Paradise Public School, New Colony, Duhatand and at present working as T.G.T. at Dr. J.C. Sinha Memorial School at Nawadih, Dhanbad. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was married on 02.06.2013 and since her marriage, she is residing with her husband at Greater Noida and is working as Assistant Professor in B.Tech (CSE) in JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have no concern with any matrimonial dispute between informant, her in-laws and husband. The allegation of demand of dumper for the first time is alleged to be raised by husband of the informant, while they were on honeymoon trip at different places in India. There was no occasion to the petitioners to live at their parental home to quarrel with the informant or demand anything much less, the dumper which is of no use for them. It is admitted by informant that her father-in-law is a rich person and as such there is no occasion to ask one dumper from the informant. It is out and out a case of roping falsely all the family members including the married sisters-in-law, who are in service and working at difference place only with a view to harass and humiliate them. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly consider the overall materials collected during investigation in the light of averments in the first information report. The informant 2026:JHHC:19079 6 herself has not mentioned any instances of cruelty against the petitioners constituting the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Therefore, no question of corroboration from any other hearsay witnesses, interrogated during investigation, ever arises. It is the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court to consider all the materials collected during investigation as well as document submitted therewith and record findings about sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is further submitted that for framing charge against the accused persons under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Judge is required to express his opinion after considering the materials and hearing the parties that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is further submitted that the impugned order itself reveals as observed at Page No.9 as under:- “All the witnesses examined during investigation have fully supported and corroborated the allegations made against also these two petitioners, although the informant/victim has not specifically stated regarding abortion (termination of pregnancy) against these petitioners but she and all the witnesses have fully supported about other offences and there are sufficient materials to frame charge also against these petitioners and therefore, this case requires trial.” 7. The aforesaid observation clearly indicates that no material has been collected against the petitioners showing a prima facie case for 2026:JHHC:19079 7 proceeding against them for an offence exclusively triable by Court of Session due to specific observation that offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. does not attract against the petitioners due to lack of evidence against them. Therefore, instead of proceeding further in the matter, the case might have been remitted back to the concerned Trial Court under Section 228(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference in this revision and impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials collected during investigation against the petitioners and after detailed discussion has arrived at subjective satisfaction that sufficient materials are collected against the petitioners for further proceeding and framing charge against the petitioners for the alleged offences. At this stage of the proceedings, roving enquiry like a mini trial, going into the question of truth or falsity of allegation and sufficiency of evidence for the conviction of the accused persons is not required. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears from the impugned order as well as the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. by the victim lady, who is sufferer of the alleged occurrence and star witness of this case, she has filed a written report with all allegations containing in three pages which is centered around against 2026:JHHC:19079 8 her husband and in-laws. Admittedly, the petitioners are married sisters- in-law, who were married in the year 2004 and 2013, respectively and the informant was married in the year 2016. Both the petitioners are working lady and residing at different place even prior to the solemnization of marriage of the informant. It is also on record that the informant has given birth to a female child and her second pregnancy was terminated by insufficient medical support and also due to exertion of work, deterioration of health and abuse and assault by her husband and mother-in-law as stated in the F.I.R. There is no whisper against the present petitioners showing any overt act for constituting offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. against them, which is exclusively triable by Court of Session. So far other allegations although, general in terms alleged against the petitioners are constituting only offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. triable by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. 10. It is trite that at the time of opening of the prosecution case and hearing on discharge or framing charge against the accused, the learned Trial Judge has to consider all the materials collected during investigation, albeit at this stage, disputed question of facts raised by defence may not be considered, but a reasoned order is required to be passed regarding sufficiency of ground for further proceeding for the proposed charges or for presuming on the basis of materials that the accused has committed the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. 11. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial 2026:JHHC:19079 9 Court has miserably failed to record any reasons as required under law as stated above and rejected the application of the petitioners, therefore, impugned order is not legal, proper and justified under law, which is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. 12. Learned Trial Court is directed to rehear the parties affording reasonable opportunity without granting unnecessary adjournments and pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid observations. 13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 30/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 01/07/2026