( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3206 of 2017 1. Vinay Kumar Gupta @ Binay Gupta, S/o Late Chamari Lal Gupta 2. Usha Gupta @ Usha Devi, Wife of Vinay Kumar Gupta 3. Pawan Gupta, S/o Vinay Kumar Gupta 4. Pankaj Gupta, S/o Vinay Kumar Gupta 5. Sweta Gupta @ Sweta Kumari, W/o Pankaj Gupta 6. Praveen Gupta S/o Vinay Kumar Gupta All resident of 498, Sindhia Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (Durg) Chhattisgarh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sweta Kumar, W/o Praveen Gupta, D/o Brijnandan Prasad, Resident of 64/3, Sindhi Refugee Colony, Post Agrico, P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to set aside the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Golmuri (Burmamines) P.S. ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 Case No. 12 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 156 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 being the mother- in-law, petitioner nos.3 & 4 being the brothers-in-law, petitioner no.5 being the sister-in-law and petitioner no.6 being the husband of the informant; in criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common intention treated the informant with cruelty. It is also alleged that at the time of the marriage the petitioners took dowry including jewellery as well as other articles, in total worth Rs.30,17,695/- but being not satiated with that, they harassed the informant by their wilful conduct by demanding for the additional dowry of ₹ 10 lakhs. The petitioners also demanded remaining amount for the Honda City Car as only Rs.5,00,000/- was given on that account by the parents of the informant. They harassed the informant by taunting her and abusing her regularly on small matters and treating her indecently in obscene manner and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- more to be brought by the informant from her parents. By their wilful conduct which was of such a nature as is likely to cause danger to the health of the informant both ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 mental and physical; the petitioners harassed the informant. Besides treating the informant in obscene manner, they also used to say unpleasant words against the family members of the informant on daily basis. Because of such continuous harassment and wilful conduct of the petitioners, the mental health condition of the informant deteriorated and she had to be treated by the doctor at Jamshedpur. When the informant became pregnant, the petitioners pressurized the informant to abort the foetus. Ultimately, the informant gave birth to a son but the expenses of the hospital was not borne by the petitioners nor they came to see the son of the petitioner no.6. On 05.10.2014, the informant was not given food to eat and they did not allow even the son of the informant to come to her and when the informant protested the same, the petitioners raised the volume of the T.V. and together they assaulted the informant. The petitioner no.3 pulled the hair of the informant, the petitioner no.5 gave pushes to her, the petitioner no.6 pulled her saree and the remaining petitioners abused in filthy language and the petitioner no.1 was telling to sell the informant and to make her a prostitute. The informant was treated like this during the whole day. On the same day between 08:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. when the informant told the petitioner no.1 to give her son aged one year and ten months to her, as her son also had not taken food, the petitioner no.2 ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 assaulted the informant by slaps. The petitioner no.3 assaulted with fists blows on the back of the informant, the petitioner no.5 caught hold of both her hands and rest of the petitioners assaulted her and the petitioner no.6 pulled the hair of the informant and wiped her vermillion and removed the mangalsutra chain from her neck and kept the same with him and all the petitioners abused her in various manner and assaulted her. It appeared to the informant that in the night, the petitioners will kill her. When the informant asked for water, her husband spitted on her face. They did not allow the informant to come out of her room. Between 12:00 mid night and 01:00 A.M., the informant got the chance to reach to her mobile phone and intimated the matter to her sister, friends and brother through WhatsApp message. On 08.10.2014 when the father, paternal uncle, brother-in-law and brother came to the house of the friend of the informant, there also the petitioners quarrelled with them and abused them and on being requested by the father of the informant to let the informant to go with him, the same was not agreed to by the petitioners and they said that they will not allow the son of the informant to go with her to her paternal house. The matter was intimated to the police. The valuables of the informant were taken away by the petitioners from her suitcase. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Golmuri P.S. Case ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 No. 12 of 2015 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and on the basis of the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The claim of the informant that the hospital expenses at the time of the delivery of her son were not borne by the petitioners is false, in the absence of any document to this effect. Prior to institution of the complaint, no other case was instituted. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioners, all the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being husband and relatives of husband of the informant subjected the informant to cruelty by harassing her in ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 various manner, has described in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and that they have also taken dowry and demanding further dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. These allegations were found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and basing upon the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned Magistrate. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false is concerned, the same at best is their defence, which they can take during the trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding; as it is a settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 9. After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken and if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case including the contents of the case diary and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken are in fact being made out. As the allegation that the petitioner stated the informant with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry by harassing and by the wilful conduct in order to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations that the petitioner is to dowry at the time of the marriage of the petitioner no.6 with the ( 2026:JHHC:19323 ) 8 Cr.M.P. No.3206 of 2017 informant and that they are demanding further additional dowry of ₹ 10 lakhs is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be acceded to in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th June, 2026 AFR/Sonu- Uploaded on 04.07.2026