(2026:JHHC:12970) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2725 of 2022 1. Smt. Bhagwati Agarwal @ Bhagwati Devi, aged about 68 years, wife of Ramesh Kumar Agarwala 2. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal @ Ramesh Kumar Agarwala, aged about 69 years, son of Prabhati Lal Agarwal Both residents of House No. 62, Golmuri Market Near S.B.I. Bank, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Golmuri, Dist.-East Singhbhum .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manisha Agarwal, wife of Deepak Agarwal, daughter of late Puran Mal Khowal, House No. 62, Golmuri Market Bhartiya, Near S.B.I. Bank, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Golmuri, Dist.-East Singhbhum present residing at Ratu Road, Near Pahari Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdevnagar, Dist.-Ranchi …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ….. 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 FIR including the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.49 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.691 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned (2026:JHHC:12970) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 being the father-in- law, at the time of the marriage of the informant with her husband, demanded dowry of cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, jewellery worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. The father of the informant and her brothers could not meet the said huge amount of dowry and paid Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, jewellery worth Rs. 3,00,000/- and clothes, furniture, freeze, T.V., AC, mixer grinder etc. worth Rs.2,00,000/-. After the informant went to her matrimonial house, the petitioners along with co-accused persons expressed their unhappiness regarding the articles given to the informant and abused her in filthy language on small matters. The petitioners as well as the husband of the informant used to beat her and used to lock her in a room and were depriving her food for one to two days as a means of harassment to coerce the informant to meet their unlawful demand. The informant gave birth to a son on 31.10.2010 and on that occasion the family members of the informant gave a lot of articles but even after that, the petitioners and the husband of the informant continued their act of beating the informant to coerce her to fulfil their further demand of Rs.3,00,000/-. Because of the failure of the informant to meet the unlawful demand of the (2026:JHHC:12970) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 petitioners and their son, the petitioners did not accept the informant in her matrimonial house and the informant was forced to stay in her parental house for one and half years in-spite of several requests of the family members of the informant to take her and her son back to her matrimonial house. As the family members of the informant were unable to meet the demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- so, the informant filed M.T.S. No. 74 of 2017 in the Family Court, Ranchi for dissolution of her marriage. There was a mediation and after that, assurance was given by the husband of the informant to keep and maintain her properly and that he will not make any further demand of dowry. The informant then went to her matrimonial house. She became pregnant and gave birth to another son but after birth of the second son, also the informant was beaten by her husband and the petitioners used to taunt the informant on small matters by telling that she is unable to bring the dowry as per their wishe; hence, she should be driven out from her matrimonial house and her husband should have divorced her and should have gone for the second marriage. After being treated with cruelty continuously, the informant was again taken back to her paternal house by her family members. During the lockdown period of March, 2020, the petitioners and their family members used to beat the informant and used to lock her in a room without food after snatching away her phone. The bed of her was taken away, the water connection of her kitchen was disconnected and all the bulbs were taken away and the (2026:JHHC:12970) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 informant was made to live in a dark room; all as means of her harassment to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioners. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ranchi Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners after finding the allegation against them to be true and on the basis of the same, Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 5. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case is next fixed to 11.05.2026 for consideration of the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and no case in respect of the offence in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case reiterated the settled principle of law and held that courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in (2026:JHHC:12970) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 dealing with the complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion and the allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case, the petitioners have been implicated merely because they are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that unlike the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (supra) this is a case where the petitioners are admittedly residing in the same house as that of the informant; as and when the informant was residing in her matrimonial house. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that this is a case where there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they have demanded dowry, they have taken dowry and not satiated with the same, they are demanding further Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry and in order to coerce the informant to meet their unlawful demand in a systematic manner, (2026:JHHC:12970) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 they are harassing the informant in a most inhuman and uncivilized manner by locking her in a room for a day or two without food, beating her on and off, taunting her, abusing her only to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand and these allegations were found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and since the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences based on police report, so, no illegality has been done by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in taking the cognizance as the materials in the record including the FIR, materials which have been collected during the investigation of the case; which has been mentioned in the case diary and the charge sheet are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that 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 (2026:JHHC:12970) 7 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 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) a 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. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners harassed the informant in most inhuman and uncivilized manner by beating her, by locking her in a room and depriving her food for a day or two, driving her out from her matrimonial house for a considerable period of time and setting up as a condition (2026:JHHC:12970) 8 Cr.M.P. No.2725 of 2022 precedent of payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry to, take back the informant to her matrimonial house, with the sons born out of the wedlock of the informant with none other than the son of the petitioners and they have taken dowry at the time of marriage, they have demanded further dowry; which in the considered opinion of this Court, if considered to be true in their entirety are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (supra) as admittedly the petitioners are living in the same house in which the informant used to live, whenever she was at her matrimonial house and in view of the direct allegation against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioners is to be quashed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 1st May, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 04/05/2026