(2026:JHHC:9260) 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2767 of 2024 1. Rajesh Kumar, son of Nandu Ram, aged about 39 years. 2. Nandu Ram, son of late Chhathu Ram, aged about 66 years. 3. Kalawati Devi, w/o Nandu Ram, aged about 61 years. 4. Rahul Kumar, son of Nandu Ram, aged about 24 years. 5. Soni Kumar, d/o Nandu Ram, aged about 37 years. (All are residents at Kandu Muhalla, PO – Daltonganj, PS – Daltonganj (Town). … … …Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sangita Kumar, w/o Rajesh Kumar, d/o Ramjee Ram, aged about 29 years, resident at Kandu Muhalla, PO & PS – Daltonganj, District – Palamau at present address – C/o Ramjee Ram at village Beni Kala, PS – Hussainabad, District – Palamau. … … …Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate ------ 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of Daltonganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 16 of 2023 and also to quash the (2026:JHHC:9260) 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 order dated 22.11.2023 by which cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, prayer is to quash the order dated 20.08.2024 by which charge has been framed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with G.R. Case No. 2188 of 2023. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset that in the meanwhile, trial has already begun and several witnesses have been examined but the petitioners do not know how many witnesses have been examined. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 being the husband and petitioner nos. 2 to 5 being the relatives of the petitioner no. 1, treated the informant-complainant with cruelty by harassing her, to coerce her to meet their unlawful dowry demand of Rs. Ten Lakhs in cash, gold chain and ring. As a means of harassment, the petitioners used to abuse and beat the complainant-informant regularly. Additionally, as a means of harassment the petitioners snatched away all the valuables of the complainant – informant including her costly wearing apparels and threw her out from her matrimonial house; only because of the failure of the petitioners to meet the said unlawful demand of dowry; in order to coerce her to meet such unlawful demand. (2026:JHHC:9260) 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 5. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 16 of 2023, the same was referred to Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. basing upon which, Daltonganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023 was registered and Police took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, Police found that the allegations against the petitioners of having committed offences in respect of which charge has been framed against the petitioners and which are already mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment; to be true. Basing upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and subsequently charges have already been framed. 6. It is also submitted that several witnesses have already been examined during the trial, the exact number of the witnesses examined was not disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint was not supported by any affidavit and the learned Magistrate ought not have referred to the same under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is false, and general and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment (2026:JHHC:9260) 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Venkatesh V. State of Karnataka reported in AIR OnLine (2022) SC 175, Paragraph No. 28 and 29 wherein it has been observed that when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not have entertained the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in view of the legal position as has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra). 8. It is next submitted that the petitioner no. 1 filed Original Suit No. 120 of 2022 in Family Court, Palamau, for restitution of conjugal rights with the informant and the same has been decreed ex-parte. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Spl. P.P. and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the copy of the complaint that has been annexed in this Cr.M.P., goes to show that the same was supported by an affidavit by the complainant before Notary Public. 10. It is next submitted that since the Police has already investigated the case and found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and the trial is at this belated stage, it will not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceeding on a mere technical ground; that was made as an abundant caution. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing offences and the same has been found to be true by the Police and has been corroborated by the (2026:JHHC:9260) 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 witnesses examined so far by the prosecution, during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the contention of the petitioners that the complaint was not supported by the affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it is pertinent to referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Another in Criminal Appeal No.2574 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2123 of 2024 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:- “9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in “Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others” (2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the said observation has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided.” (Emphasis supplied) therein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the observations made in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided and in the case of M/s SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Another even though the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, still the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the Magistrate after having been prima facie satisfied, having exercised its (2026:JHHC:9260) 6 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 judicial discretion by directing investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; held such order to be just, legal and proper and set aside the order passed by the High Court setting aside such order of Magistrate. To the same effect, is the judgment of Anurag Bhatnagar & Another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2025) SCC OnLine 1514, Paragraph No. 32 and 33 reads as under :- 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction. 33. To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, on the basis of the complaint being referred to Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023 was registered on 30.08.2023 and the charge- sheet in the said case was submitted on 30.10.2023, cognizance of the said offences was taken on 22.11.2023. The petitioner never challenged the said referring of the complaint to Police when the FIR was registered, or (2026:JHHC:9260) 7 Cr.M.P. No. 2767 of 2024 when the charge-sheet was submitted and not immediately even after the cognizance of the offence were taken. The petitioner for the first time came to Court on 12.08.2024. The undisputed fact remains that in the meanwhile charge has already been framed and trial is at an advance stage and a substantial number of witnesses have been examined by the trial court. 13. Under such facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, a technical plea that the complainant was not supported by the affidavit, is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Now coming to the merits of the case, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing offence in respect of which charge has been framed against the petitioners. 14. The Trial is at an advance stage. So, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the trial court be allowed to take a call on the merits of the case and it is not a fit case to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th March, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On -15/04/2026