JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 6035 of 2023 including the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVII, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVII, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant subjected the complainant to cruelty by his willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to cause danger to the life, limb and health both mental and physical by repeatedly assaulting her, abusing her and ultimately driving her out from her matrimonial house along with their younger son and younger daughter; who is unmarried. Even though a Panchayat was held in which the petitioner undertook not to repeat his conduct of assaulting the complainant and took the complainant back to her house but after taking the complainant to her house, the petitioner again assaulted the complainant. Besides above, the petitioner disconnected the electricity and water connection to the portion of the house where the complainant was residing and used to lock the toilet after using the same; thereby depriving the complainant and their two children from using the same but even that was not enough to satisfy the evil intention of the petitioner and ultimately, again the petitioner drove out the complainant and their two children from matrimonial house of the complainant. 4. Basing upon the Complaint, the statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and issued the summoning order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not appearing in the trial court and the case is next fixed to 26.03.2026. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Singh @ Puspendra Kumar Singh @ Pushpendra Singh Vs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not appearing in the trial court and the case is next fixed to 26.03.2026. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Singh @ Puspendra Kumar Singh @ Pushpendra Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, 2024:JHHC:32303 that this Court in the facts of that case, when there was no allegation against the petitioner of that case of perpetrating cruelty willfully which was likely to drive the informant to commit suicide nor there was any allegation that such conduct was to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the informant and there was no allegation against the petitioner of that case of having caused any harm to the informant in connection with any unlawful demand; this Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings of that case. It is next submitted that though in this case, there is allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the complainant repeatedly and driving out her from her matrimonial house along with their two children, still the ratio of that judgment is applicable to the facts of this case. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that this case has been instituted maliciously. It is then submitted that the petitioner admits to be the husband of the complainant but due to some misunderstanding, the complainant has filed this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner is residing in the same house along with the complainant, their two children and grand children. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2019) 5 SCC 384 , Para-14 of which reads as under:- “14. “Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean “the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. “Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean “the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)”. Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression “cruelty” appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatise the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon the meaning of cruelty is given in the Black’s Law Dictionary which means “the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, especially a human; abusive treatment; outrage (abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)” and went on to hold that the cruelty can be both physical and mental cruelty. The emotional distress or psychological effect of the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. It is next submitted that the facts of this case is more graver than the facts of the case of Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra). It is next submitted that the facts of this case is more graver than the facts of the case of Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra). Here, the complainant has not voluntarily left her matrimonial house but was driven out forcibly from her matrimonial house along with her two children. The contention of the petitioner that he is residing with the complainant in his house is at best a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case but the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings because the defence of the accused persons cannot be considered by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for the purpose of quashing the entire criminal proceedings as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, para-11 of which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of wilful conduct of such a nature, as is likely to cause danger to the life, limb and health of the complainant both mental and physical, as besides assaulting her several times and abusing her off and on, the complainant has been treated inhumanly by disconnecting the electricity and water connection to the portion of the house in which the complainant was residing and locking the toilet after use of the same by the petitioner, to deprive the use of the same by the complainant and not being satisfied with this inhuman treatment; ultimately, going to the extent of the petitioner driving out the complainant and their two children from her matrimonial house. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and that he is still residing in the house with the complainant, is at best the defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case but in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings at this nascent stage when the petitioner is deliberately evading his appearance in the trial for over two years even though he is very much aware about the summoning order as has been passed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVII, Ranchi. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.