2026:JHHC:19132 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 185 of 2017 ------ 1. Khalik Ansari, son of Gulam Goush. 2. Anawari Begum, wife of Gulam Goush. 3. Gulam Goush @ Gulam Goush Ansari, son of Late Abdul Raub. 4. Chunnu Ansari, son of Gulam Goush. 5. Rubi Khatoon @ Rubi, daughter of Gulam Goush. 6. Khushboo Khatoon @ Khushboo, daughter of Dhushboo Khatoon. All are resident of K.C. Danga Ban, Bankura Municipal Area, Ward No. 19, P.O. + P.S. + District – Bankura (W.B.) .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rukhsana Parveen @ Khatoon, wife of Khalik Ansari and D/o Md. Nijamudin, at present residing at Village – Bhadrichak, P.O. & P.S. – Jogta, Distrcit – Dhanbad. …. .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Jaiswal, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Advocate. Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate. ------ F I N A L O R D E R Dated- 30.06.2026 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1021 of 2010 registered for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C., whereby the application for discharge of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2026:JHHC:19132 2 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant / opposite party no. 2 has lodged a complaint against her husband (petitioner no. 1) and in-laws (petitioner nos. 2 to 6) alleging inter alia that she is legally married wife of petitioner no.1 and her marriage with petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 25.03.2009 according to Muslim customs. At the time of marriage, her father gave sufficient cash and goods as per his capacity to the accused. It is further alleged that after marriage, the complainant went to her sasural, where she was living peacefully for some time and thereafter, all the accused persons asked the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her father, then the complainant asked her father for the said fund and when her father shown his inability to pay such huge amount, then all the accused persons started torture the complainant in various ways. On 30.12.2009, the accused persons have brutally assaulted her, for which, she was admitted in Hospital for treatment. In the meantime, the complainant became pregnant and on 21.02.2010, all the accused persons after hatching conspiracy with each other again brutally assaulted the complainant and kicked her out from their house with a warning to bring Rs. 50,000/, then she will be allowed to live with them. The father of the complainant called a Panchayat on 20.05.2010 and also informed the local P.S., 2026:JHHC:19132 3 but all in vain. Thereafter, she filed complaint petition before C.J.M., Dhanbad. 4. After lodging of Complaint, the complainant and her witnesses were examined. The trial court, after examining the materials available on record, finds prima facie case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners and accordingly, took cognizance of the same and directed to issue summons against the petitioners to face trial vide order dated 15.09.2010. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 15.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has preferred a petition for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, has rejected the petition of the petitioners, which has been assailed in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the complainant and petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the father-in-law and petitioner nos. 4 to 6 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. There is no specific averment made in the entire case record against the present petitioners, but in spite of that, this fact has not been considered at the time of taking cognizance against them and hence, the learned trial court, without considering the facts took cognizance against the accused persons, which is 2026:JHHC:19132 4 quite unwarranted in the eyes of law. The entire family members of the husband of the complainant have been made accused in the instant case. The dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 has been settled outside the Court and to this effect an Agreement-cum- Undertaking Bond has been entered into between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1. Thereafter, against the order taking cognizance, the petitioners preferred a petition for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on the ground of compromise, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioners 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has defended the impugned order and has submitted that a very reasoned order has been passed by the learned trial court considering the over all aspects of the case and the materials available on records. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference. This revision has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:19132 5 8. It appears that the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that compromise was entered between the parties, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order. It appears that in Cr.M.P. No. 1600/2014, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.09.2014, has not accepted the alleged settlement between the parties and has held that :- “Keeping into view the age of the opposite party wife and also the fact that she has to maintain two children, I am not inclined to accept the settlement between the parties, which is said to be for only Rs.1,00,000/-.” Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, calling for any interference at this stage of proceeding. 9. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision which stands dismissed. 10. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all these points at the time of trial of the case. 11. 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 : 30/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded on 03/07/2026