(2026:JHHC:8758) 1 Cr. M. P. No. 705 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 705 of 2026 Punit Tebriwal, aged about 43 years, son of Narsingh Tebriwal, resident of village – Haringdanga Bazar, PO & PS – Pakur (Town), District – Pakur. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B. N. S. S., 2023, to quash the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Pakur in Sessions Trial Case No. 92 of 2018 arising out of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has directed for alteration of charge from Section 302 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal by adding an alternative charge of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is charged for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, (2026:JHHC:8758) 2 Cr. M. P. No. 705 of 2026 13 witnesses were examined but none of them have stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband in connection with the demand for dowry. Not a single question has been put to the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to suggest that there is any allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. It is then submitted that in absence of the same, there is no justifiable reason to alter the charge, by adding the alternative charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer but fairly submits that there is no evidence that has come during the trial to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment by the husband of the deceased for or in connection with the demand for dowry. In absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur – 1, has committed grave illegality by adding the alternative charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, is quashed and set aside. (2026:JHHC:8758) 3 Cr. M. P. No. 705 of 2026 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1, Pakur is directed to pronounce the judgment in respect of the charge already existing in the record i.e., under Section 302 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view that considerable time has been passed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1, Pakur may give an opportunity of fresh hearing on merits of the sessions trial to the rival parties, if they so desire. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd March, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - 02/04/2026