Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21190 (JHR)

Renu Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-25

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. Since, both these cases have been filed with the same prayer arising out the same case, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.42 of 2023 including the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 4. The allegation against the petitioners are that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.773 of 2024 is the husband and the Petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the informant and the allegation against the petitioners are that the petitioners being the husband and relatives of the husband of the informant subjected the informant to cruelty by harassing the informant with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their unlawful demand of Rs.10 lakhs and a Scorpio vehicle. There is also allegation against the petitioners of willful conduct of such a nature as was likely to cause grave injury and danger to the life, limb and health both mentally and physically of the informant. There is further allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and a Scorpio vehicle and also causing hurt to the informant. There is further allegation against the petitioners particularly, the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 of causing sexual harassment of the informant. There is the allegation of criminal intimidation and also of insulting the informant intentionally with intent to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offences. 5. The allegations against the petitioners of demanding Rs.10 lakhs and a Scorpio Vehicle and the allegation against the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 of causing sexual harassment of the informant, has come through the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the I.O. of the case under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. including the father of the informant. 5. The allegations against the petitioners of demanding Rs.10 lakhs and a Scorpio Vehicle and the allegation against the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 of causing sexual harassment of the informant, has come through the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the I.O. of the case under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. including the father of the informant. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 of threatening the complainant and criminally intimidating her by driving her out from her matrimonial house. The Petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 used to assault and abuse the informant and were not providing her food, and used to lock her in the room to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand. There is specific instance of 10.09.2022 against the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 of assaulting the informant black and blue for non-fulfilling the demand of dowry; when treatment of cruelty meted out to the informant to coerce her to fulfil the unlawful demand was intimated by the informant to her parents. There is allegation that on that day the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 became enraged and on 10.09.2022, they drove out the injured informant from her matrimonial house in the night, resulting in the informant being forced to take shelter in the house of one of her relatives and only in the next morning, she could go to her paternal house. There is also specific allegation of 04.12.2022 on which date the father of the informant was forced to pay part of dowry demand of Rs.4 lakhs but the part payment of the dowry demand could not satisfy the greed of the petitioners and on 20.02.2023, the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 attempted to forcibly establish physical relationship with the informant and on being protested by the informant, the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 beat up the informant severely and locked her in the room and when the informant intimated this to the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024; the petitioner no.1 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 drove out the informant from her matrimonial house by kicking her out from there along with her baby. 6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ranchi Mahila P.S. Case No.42 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case. 6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ranchi Mahila P.S. Case No.42 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the said offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police in the case vide order dated 29.10.2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2549 of 2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the informant and her parents are BPL Card holders and the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that prior to lodging this FIR, the informant submitted an application to the Women’s Cell-cum-Officer in Charge, Mahila Police Station, Ranchi, with a request for convening a conciliation proceeding between the parties, but in that she did not allege that the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.708 of 2024 having attempted to forcibly establish physical relationship with her. It is next submitted that the police conducted investigation in most perfunctory manner. It is next submitted that the cognizance order is vague in nature and it is the second marriage of the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.773 of 2024 with the informant. It is next submitted that informant lodged this FIR in retaliation of the Sanha lodged by her father-in-law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geddam Jhansi & Another vs. The State of Telangana & Others reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 281 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the fact that criminalizing domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust and submit that in this case, also the criminal liability has been set in motion on vague and vexatious allegations. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in MANU/SC/0163/2022 wherein in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and submits that in para-102 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has enumerated the category of cases by way of illustration, wherein the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein in the facts of that case in the complaint, allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2 of that case assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except the demand of luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment in that case relied upon its judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The relevant para-20 of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) reads as under:- “20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. The relevant para-20 of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) reads as under:- “20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharif Ahmed & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2024 4 Supreme 224 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. The statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses and the role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge sheet, for each of the accused persons. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 13. Learned Spl.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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the police after investigation of the case has found the allegations against the petitioners to be true in respect of the offences, in respect of which the charge sheet has been submitted and basing upon the same, learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences. It is next submitted that the witnesses whose statements appears in different paragraphs of the case diary have categorically stated about the demand of dowry and the treatment of cruelty meted out to the informant by each of the petitioners of both these cases and on finding the same to be true submitted charge sheet. It is next submitted that besides the offences in respect of which learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences are also made out against the petitioners, but it being a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance based on the police report, the Magistrate cannot add or subtract any section, so learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has rightly taken cognizance of the offences at this stage only in respect of all the offences in respect of which the charge sheet has been submitted, but certainly, learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi at the time of framing of charge will also frame charges in respect of other offences as well. 14. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma vs. Monica reported in (2014) 3 SCC 383 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the facts alleged will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial, it would be wholly unnecessary of appreciation of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR even in summary manner; as the same would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it and this is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. 15. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in this case, also the undisputed facts remains that witnesses including the father of the informant have stated about the commission of each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, but the veracity of the statements could not be tested at this stage in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 16. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in para-14 thereof it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that for the purpose of exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and to the same effect, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540. 17. In respect of the power of the High Court while examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 18. In support of his contention that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 in para-10.5. 19. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 20. 19. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 20. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid down the law that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R. on which investigation had been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing the charge under section 216, 218 & 228 of Cr.P.C. 21. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry, treating the informant with cruelty and committing other offences. The only contention of the petitioner is that there is some exaggeration made by the some of the witnesses including the father of the informant. There is also allegation that the informant has improved her allegations as made in an application to the Women’s Cell with a request for conciliation proceeding to be conducted, but as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, since it is not open for this court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to appreciate the evidence or to test the veracity of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 8 SCC 734 , paragraph-7 of which reads as under:- “7. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 8 SCC 734 , paragraph-7 of which reads as under:- “7. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence. At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and charge-sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge-sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any case for discharge is made out or not.” (Emphasis supplied) has opined that when the charge sheet is submitted, the trial court be asked to take a call on the merits of the case instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 23. In this case, since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance based on the police report and if the allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR, the material collected during the investigation of the case which has been mentioned in the case diary of the case as also the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, certainly some of the offences including the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners, hence, this Court is of the considered view that at this nascent stage, it will not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioners in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 24. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.