(2026:JHHC:11513) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1799 of 2024 1. Sanjeevan Kumar Singh @ Sanjivan Singh, aged about 65 years, s/o late Baleshwar Prasad, r/o Malepur, Jamui, P.O.-Mallehpur, P.S.- Mallehpur, Dist.-Jamui (Bihar) 2. Rina Devi @ Reena Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Sanjeevan Kumar Singh @ Sanjivan Singh, r/o Malepur, Jamui, P.O.- Mallehpur, P.S.-Mallehpur, Dist.-Jamui (Bihar) 3. Prashant Kumar Singh, aged about 42 years, s/o Sanjeevan Kumar Singh @ Sanjivan Singh, r/o Malepur, Jamui, P.O.-Mallehpur, P.S.- Mallehpur, Dist.-Jamui (Bihar) 4. Shiwani Singh @ Shivani Singh @ Shivani, aged about 37 years, wife of Dharmendra Kumar Singh, r/o Chhatrapati Niwas, Postal Park Chauraha, Singh Market, Kankarbagh, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.O.-Patna G.P.O., P.S.-Kankarbagh, Dist.-Patna (Bihar)-800001 .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shruti Priya Singh, w/o Kaushal Kishore Singh and d/o Kumar Navin, r/o Flat No. 16, Jamuna Appartment, Niranjan Singh Complex, Dimna Road, P.O. & P.S.-Ulidih, Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate ….. By the Court:- I.A. No.5096 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. (2026:JHHC:11513) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 1799 of 2024 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 including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.3895 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.1 is the father- in-law, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the elder brother-in-law and petitioner no.4 is the sister-in-law of the husband of the complainant. After solemnization of marriage of the complainant with the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, the petitioners made a dowry demand of Rs.50,00,000/- to be brought by the complainant from her father. In order to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 kept all the (2026:JHHC:11513) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 jewellery of the complainant presented at the time of her marriage to her by her father by taking the same from the complainant. The husband of the complainant also demanded Rs.50,00,000/- to be brought by the complainant and in order to coerce her to meet the said unlawful demand, treated the complainant with both mental and physical cruelty. The petitioners aborted the child of the complainant without her consent and for reasons other than saving her life as the sex of the foetus was illegally tested and found out to be a girl child. As a part of harassment to meet the said unlawful demand of the petitioners, the petitioners used to administer an injection namely Depo Provera and when the complainant was refusing to take the injection, she was assaulted and was denied food and she was kept locked in a room. When the brother of the complainant went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, the husband of the complainant reiterated the demand of Rs.50,00,000/- and ultimately on 31.10.2021 because of the failure on the part of the complainant to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioners, the complainant was driven out from her matrimonial house, after being beaten and was told that unless she brings Rs.50,00,000/- she will not be kept in her matrimonial house. There is further allegation against the husband of the complainant of cheating by impersonation by opening a bank account with IDBI bank, Hyderabad, in the name of the complainant without obtaining the signature of the complainant. Not contended with that, the husband of the (2026:JHHC:11513) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 complainant on 10.02.2023 sent two persons to eliminate the complainant. On the complaint being made, police apprehended the two said persons, took them to police station. They admitted that they were sent by the husband of the complainant but police without taking any action in the matter let them go scot-free. The complainant approached the police; but police sat over the matter for considerable period of time and ultimately advised the complainant to come through the Court. Hence, the complainant filed the complainant case. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur basing upon the materials available in the record found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above and ordered for issuance of summons. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Charul Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 297, that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh reported in (1981) 3 SCC 34 and in the facts of the case, though the complaint was filed after a delay of seven years involving the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code wherein, it was observed that it is a matter of utmost importance that any prosecution whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. It is (2026:JHHC:11513) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is inordinate delay in institution of the complaint case as though the first occurrence i.e. solemnization of marriage took place on 06.12.2014 and the last occurrence took place on 10.02.2023 but the complaint was filed only on 14.08.2023 hence, there is an inordinate delay, therefore, applying the principle of the case of Charul Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), this case be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Maimun Nisha & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023:JHHC:40167 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022(1) JBCJ 351 (SC), paragraph no.21 of which reads as under:- “21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.” and submits that since the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, the allegation even if treated to be true in its entirety, still is not sufficient to constitute any of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. (2026:JHHC:11513) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and submits that as there is no specific allegation against the petitioners hence, the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and both the children are with the petitioners and a Guardianship and Wards Act case is pending in the family court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur failed to take into consideration that the petitioner no.4 Shiwani Singh @ Shiwani Singh @ Shiwani is the married sister-in-law of the complainant and she lives with her husband at Patna. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.50,00,000/- and in order to coerce the complainant to fulfil the unlawful demand of the petitioners, they have used her to make her undergo sex determination test and to make her abort the child and even though they are not doctor or compounder, they have (2026:JHHC:11513) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 administered injection to the complainant against her will as part of harassment and they were also continuously threatening the complainant when she was refusing the forced administration of the injection and not satiate with the same, even denying her food and also used to keep her locked in a room for several days. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that unlike the case of State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh (supra); this case is not barred by time, though it has been mentioned in the complaint that the first date of occurrence is 06.12.2014 but that is only the date of marriage and the offence is a continuous offence and from fact that the complainant has been thrown out from her matrimonial house only to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of money of the petitioners, the same is a continuous offence hence, the offence cannot be termed to be barred by time prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hence, the ratio of Charul Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. So far as the judgment in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that in the facts of that case where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of (2026:JHHC:11513) 8 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 that case but this is not a case where there is any second FIR hence, the ratio of that judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is then submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that so far as the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra) is concerned, in paragraph no.25 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner has observed by way of caution, that it may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations 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 was emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused; more so against the co-accused, specially 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; but as in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners hence, the ratio of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In respect of delay in institution of the complaint is concerned, it is (2026:JHHC:11513) 9 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is direct allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have taken dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash, jewellery of Rs.10,00,000/, Rs. 15,00,000/- for purchase of Baleno car and other household articles and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which provides for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years hence, the delay is to be tested on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties at the time of trial. Therefore, it is submitted that this complaint ought not to be dismissed on the ground of delay at this nascent stage, when charge is yet to be framed. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have taken dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash, Rs.10,00,000/- jewellery and Rs.15,00,000/- for purchasing a Baleno car and other household articles; which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, there is allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and there is allegation against the petitioners of treating the complainant with cruelty, harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful (2026:JHHC:11513) 10 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 demand of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of failure of her and her father to meet the said dowry demand by indulging in their wilful conduct of such a nature as was likely to commit damage to the life and health both mentally and physically of the complainant by administering injection to her even though they were not trained for administering injection and on refusal of the complainant to administer injections by them, they used to beat her and without providing her food used to lock her in a room for several days and finally for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry as well as the unlawful demand of ₹ 50 lakhs the complainant was driven out from her matrimonial house, without any rhyme or reason but for her failure to fulfil the unlawful demand of the petitioners. The allegations if are considered to be true in their entirety, the same is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under section 498A IPC as well as sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of this case are different from the facts of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra), for the reasons described in detail in the following paragraphs of this judgement, while mentioning the submissions of the opposite parties. 13. So far as the delay in institution of the complaint is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punit Beriwala v. State of (2026:JHHC:11513) 11 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, paragraph no. 37 of which reads as under:- “37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, “The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents…..”” (Emphasis supplied) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, unlike the case of State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh (supra), this is not a case where the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the complainant has explained the delay in institution of the complaint by mentioning in the complaint that she first approached by police and reported the matter to police and police sat over the matter for a considerable period of time but ultimately advised the (2026:JHHC:11513) 12 Cr.M.P. No.1799 of 2024 complainant to come through the Court and sufficiency of such explanation can be tested by the trial court only after recording of the evidence. So, in the considered opinion of this court, the delay in filing the complaint cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding, at this stage. 15. In view of the discussions made above, considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.3895 of 2023 be quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th April, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 27/04/2026