(2026:JHHC:21995) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2261 of 2020 Md. Qummar Islam, aged about 39 years, s/o Md. Sikandar Ali, r/o Village-Choti Kodarjanna, P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (T), Dist.- Sahibganj, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nemat Azad, d/o Seikh Azad, r/o Village- Choti Kodarjanna, P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (T), Dist.-Sahibganj, Jharkhand Residing at : Village-Sukhari, P.O. & P.S.-Meharma, Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, GP I For O.P. No.2 : None ….. 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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the FIR as also the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, in connection with Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019, whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda on the basis of the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner by the police upon completion of (2026:JHHC:21995) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020 the investigation of the case for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Though a lawyer has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the informant took dowry at the time of marriage by the informant of Rs.3,70,000/- and subsequent to the marriage also demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and because of non- fulfilment of the dowry demand harassed the informant by causing hurt to her, by assaulting her, intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit breach of peace and other offences, committed theft of the articles of the informant and also committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the property entrusted to the petitioner. 5. 5. Basing upon the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation police found all the allegations made against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda and basing upon the same, (2026:JHHC:21995) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is delay in registration of the FIR. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the parties have settled their dispute and, in this regard, a petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the informant on 24.06.2020, the same was kept in the record but even then, the cognizance order was passed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and drawing attention of this Court to Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submits that under the said provision of law, the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, may with the consent of the Court at any time before the judgment pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution but certainly, the informant is not entitled to file a petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, so admittedly, the petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure having not been filed either by the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has not committed any error by not passing any order on such application; as the application was not (2026:JHHC:21995) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020 commensurate with the requirement of Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the undisputed fact remains that the offence made against the petitioner as mentioned in the FIR, case dairy and the charge sheet is sufficient to constitute each of the offences which is found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and in respect of which police has submitted charge sheet and basing upon the charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance of the offences. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the allegations made in the FIR, the materials which has been collected by the police during the investigation of the case as mentioned in the case diary and the charge sheet if considered to be true in its entirety then each of the offences in respect of which police has submitted charge sheet and basing upon which, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance is in fact being made out. 9. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has failed to consider the petition purportedly filed under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure by a private person being the informant is concerned, it is needless to mention that under Section 341 of Code of Criminal (2026:JHHC:21995) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020 Procedure withdrawal of the prosecution can only be done by the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case albeit with the consent of the Court but certainly, the same does not empower the informant to withdraw the prosecution for non-compoundable offences. 10. Under such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda having not acted upon the application under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure which was not filed by a person competent to file such petition, this Court do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in taking the cognizance based on the charge sheet by the police in the case; warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by acceding to the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th July, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 27/07/2026