[2026:JHHC:10278] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1232 of 2020 ------ 1. Arvind Kumar, aged about 43 years, 2. Gopesh Kumar, aged about 41 years both sons of Shri Shankar Prasad, 3. Shankar Prasad, aged about 77 years, son of Late Nageshwar Lal, All at present residing at Flat No:7, Shakuntala & Hempushpa Apartment, Basant Vihar, Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anupama Kumar, wife of Arvind Kumar, daughter of Sri Nitya Nand Nidhi, resident of Quarter No. 7092, Sector- 4/F, PO 8t. PS: Sector 4, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. [2026:JHHC:10278] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 912 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the prayer has also been made to quash the order framing charges dated 18.09.2024 in the said case, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is husband of the informant- complainant, the petitioner No.2 & 3 are respectively younger brother and father of the petitioner No.1. The allegation against them is that after solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the informant-complainant, they demanded dowry initially a car and thereafter money from time to time and harassed the informant- complainant in several manners such as frequently locking the informant-complainant in a room and beating her. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted final report by mentioning therein that the allegations made in the FIR are not true. The complainant-informant filed a protest petition which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 912 of 2017 and on the basis of the same as well as the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the [2026:JHHC:10278] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and passed the summoning order and subsequently, framed charges vide order dated 18.09.2024. The undisputed fact remains that so far, two witnesses of the complainant- informant have been examined and they have been discharged after their cross-examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 and submits that therein, 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 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 said judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon its own 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. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta [2026:JHHC:10278] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 Mehrotra & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has added by way of caution that the Supreme Court should not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what it wanted to emphasize is that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused, specifically in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused, who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nayeem Sheikh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:43877 and submits that therein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. The State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and the relatives of the husband should not be roped in [2026:JHHC:10278] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal & Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157 and submits that therein in para-15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that before a Magistrate can be said to have been taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shashi Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka & Another passed in Criminal Petition No. 5517 of 2009. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Mehra vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 569 of 2012 and submits that therein in para-15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is, inherent in a High Court and such power would be available for exercise not only at the [2026:JHHC:10278] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the protest-cum-complaint petition, the informant-complainant-opposite party No.2 has exaggerated the allegations by introducing some concocted story. The complaint petition has been filed with a malafide intention of harassing of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 11. Learned Addl.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 petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the informant- complainant-opposite party No.2 with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand; firstly, dowry demand of a car and when Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of the same was given by the father of the complainant-informant-opposite party No.2; not content with that made additional demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and because of non- fulfillment of the demand, frequently locking the informant- complainant-opposite party No.2 in a room and beating her; to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is next submitted that if the allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, then, they are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3, 4 of the [2026:JHHC:10278] 7 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that since four witnesses of the complainant have been examined; out of whom, the father of the complainant who was one of the witnesses, has expired, so, only three witnesses are to be examined on behalf of the complainant during the trial so far. Two witnesses including the complainant-informant herself has been examined during the trial, so, trial is at the fag end. Hence, at this belated stage, a mini trial is required to arrive at the conclusion that the evidence as brought on record by the complainant, is insufficient to constitute the said offences which ought not to be done by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 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 that generally the power to quash the criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised at the fag end of the trial. Of course, there is no absolute bar but the judicial constraint emanates from the principle that in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court and since undisputedly, the evidence has been recorded and two out of the three of the witnesses to be examined by the complainant, have been examined and they have been discharged after their cross-examination, hence, at this stage, quashing the entire criminal proceeding will [2026:JHHC:10278] 8 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 require appreciation of the evidence that has already been brought on record. 13. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false is concerned, the same is at best the defence of the petitioners which the petitioners can take during the trial of the case but it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused as that would be the 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 & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 14. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others 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 482 CrPC. 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 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)” [2026:JHHC:10278] 9 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 15. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, para-10 of which reads as under:- “10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that the petitioners treated the informant-complainant-opposite party No.2 with cruelty by harassing her by taking money sent by her father to her i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from that, they used to frequently lock the informant- complainant-opposite party No.2 in a room and used to beat her; as a part of their strategy to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of money of the petitioners. Hence, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, which [2026:JHHC:10278] 10 Cr. M.P. No.1232 of 2020 is of course to be treated as true at this stage, the same is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Unlike the facts of the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) and also of the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another (supra), this is not a case where the complainant-informant-opposite party No.2 does not disclose specific allegations against the accused. 17. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the advance stage of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the trial court should take call on the merits of the case in the trial and this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 19. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No. 2661 of 2024 is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of April, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 13/04/2026