( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2515 of 2024 1. Rambilash Paswan @ Ramvilas Paswan @ Ramvilas, aged about 58 years, son of late Ramdhani Paswan 2. Kolpato Devi @ Kawal Pato Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Rambilash Paswan 3. Shankar Prasad, aged about 38 years, son of Rambilash Paswan 4. Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka, aged about 29 years, daughter of Rambilash Paswan All are resident of At Murram Kalan, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, State –Jharkhand. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shipra Rani, daughter of Dr. B. Ram, resident of Bukru, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. –Kanke, District –Ranchi, State –Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sem, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 15.06.2023 passed in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1587 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class –XXIX, Ranchi ( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the informant treated her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and in order to coerce her to meet the unlawful dowry demand of gold chain, taunted the informant but as the informant was not able to get the said demand of the petitioners and the co-accused persons fulfilled, they harassed the informant by breaking her mobile phone. They in order to harass the informant to coerce her meet their unlawful demand, used to manhandle the informant and did not allow the informant to go to her parents’ house. They also used to keep the informant under constant threat that her husband will solemnize a second marriage. The petitioners used to mentally torture the informant by abusing her, taunting her and manhandling her. The treatment of cruelty by wilful acts of the petitioners was of such a nature which was likely to drive the informant to commit suicide. There is direct and specific allegation that on 05.06.2015, the petitioners and the co-accused persons beat the informant black and blue with an intention to kill her, after closing the doors and windows of the house and running the T.V. at highest volume. The F.I.R. describes the inhuman conduct of the petitioners and role played by each of the petitioners in perpetration of harassment and treatment of cruelty. On hearing the outrage of ( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 the informant, the neighbours knocked the gate of the house of the petitioners but the petitioners did not open the gate. On being informed, the parents of the informant rescued her and the informant was treated as Sadar Hospital of Hazaribagh. The informant also described in detail the mental torture with specific role played by each of the petitioners in the F.I.R. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations inter-alia against the petitioners to be true in their entirety and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners, basing upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above; vide order dated 15.06.2023 in G.R. Case No. 1587 of 2023 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299, that therein, in the facts of that case where the complainant first entered into a compromise but took the plea that the compromise deed with the terms and conditions as mentioned therein was obtained by the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India- who were the husband and his family members under threat and coercion; even though she admitted therein that she did not receive the lump sum ( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 maintenance amount and her stridhan properties and in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in view of the subsequent events and conduct of the appellants was of the considered view that it would be an abuse of process of court if the criminal proceeding in that case is allowed to continue. It is next submitted that in this case, the complainant has compromised with the son of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 who is the brother of the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 but even though notice in this Cr.M.P. was issued to her but she has not appeared before this Court. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the complainant has compromised with her husband and is leading conjugal life with him. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety as made in the F.I.R., the case diary and the charge sheet, the same is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at ( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 this nascent stage. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it appears that primarily the ground of the petitioners is that there has been a settlement between the informant and her husband. As has rightly been submitted by the learned Spl. P.P., there is absolutely no material in the record which will show that there has been a compromise between the informant and her husband and they are leading a happy conjugal life. Unlike the facts of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others (supra) where the compromise deed was placed before this Court, in this case, a compromise held in a conciliation proceeding in a family dispute between the informant and her husband has been brought on record wherein it has been mentioned that in a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was decided that both the parties will reside together and the husband will pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The same was entered into between the parties on 16.05.2023. There is no material in the record as to whether the said compromise arrived at in a conciliation proceeding before the family court was acted upon or not. Further there is no compromise between the petitioners and the informant. There is no plausible reason, as to why the husband of the informant has not come before this Court, even though he is also an accused before this Court. ( 2026:JHHC:9502 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2515 of 2024 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials brought on record is insufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has compromised with the petitioners. In the absence of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed on the ground of compromise between the petitioners and the complainant. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case as mentioned in the case diary and the brief of which has been mentioned in the charge sheet, are considered to be true, then the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken is in fact made out. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer as made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd March, 2026 AFR/Sonu/- Uploaded on 21.04.2026