Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Madan Aged About 48 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1530 of 2024
------
1. Manoj Kumar Madan aged about 48 years, S/o Sri Naresh Thakur, resident of Champa Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur.
2. Anita Kumari aged about 39 years, W/o Manoj Kumar Madan, resident of Champa Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Savita Devi, D/o Ashok Thakur, aged about 37 years, resident of Mirzacheuki, P.O. & P.S.-Mirzacheuki, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Savita Kumari, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed in the Complaint Case No.500 of 2022 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial 1 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:853 ) Magistrate, Sahibganj has found sufficient material available in the record to proceed inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 498A, 494, 420, 504, 506/34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is the husband and petitioner no.2 is the own sister of the informant/opposite party no.2 and the allegation against the petitioner no.1 is that during the subsistence of his marriage with the informant, he married with the petitioner no.2 and treated the informant/opposite party no.2 with cruelty and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been driven out from her matrimonial house and when she was driven out from her matrimonial house but her jewelleries, clothes and other valuables are still in her matrimonial house.
4. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant/opposite party no.2, police registered Mirzacheuki P.S. Case No.13 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted Final Report and did not send up the accused person of the case for trial because of lack of evidence.
5. The complainant filed a protest-cum-complaint case which was registered as P.C.R. Case No.500 of 2022 and in the said case basing upon the protest-cum-complaint petition, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant-informant and the statement of three enquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has found 2 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:853 ) sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners; as already indicated above.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the unimpeachable documents i.e. the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Family Court, Bhagalpur in Matrimonial Case No.269 of 2018 dated 17.08.2019, submits that the Hindu Marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by the decree of divorce vide the said judgment dated 17.08.2019 and on and from 17.08.2019, the informant/opposite party no.2 has ceased to be the wife of the petitioner no.1.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-8 of the brief, which is the web copy of the order of Hon'ble Patna High Court, submits that though the informant/opposite party no.2 filed Misc. Apppeal No.15 of 2021 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, but vide order dated 17.11.2022, the complainant has withdrawn the said misc. appeal as the issues between the parties have already been settled, accordingly, the said Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2021 is dismiss as withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-9, which is the copy of the certificate issued by the Marriage Officer, Bhagalpur, submits that the petitioner no.1 married the petitioner no.2 on 25.07.2020 and the same has been registered under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18.08.2021. 3 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that there is no allegation anywhere against the petitioner no.1 of having committed any act or omission prior to 17.08.2019 and since 17.08.2019, the petitioner no.1 ceased to be the husband of the informant/opposite party no.2, hence, neither the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners of removing any movable property out of the possession of informant/opposite party no.2 with any dishonest intention, hence, the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against them.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving the informant/opposite party no.2 or inducing her in any manner to part with any property etc. and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anyone, hence, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of any allegation of intentionally insulting or committing criminal intimidation against the petitioners, the offences punishable under Section 504 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that as none of the offences is made out against 4 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:853 ) the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
13. 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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Bhagalpur on 17.08.2019, but he submits that if the informant/opposite party no.2 has challenged that decree in the Hon'ble Patna High Court, then without the instruction of the informant/opposite party no.2, the same has been withdrawn. It is lastly submitted that all the offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners is made out against the petitioners on the basis of the materials available in the record against them, therefore, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed facts remains that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by the decree of divorce by the competent court being the Family Court, Bhagalpur on 17.08.2019, so this Court has no hesitation in holding that in view of the unimpeachable documents being the judgment of the said case as well as 5 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:853 ) the admission made by the parties, the petitioner no.1 ceased to be the husband of the informant/opposite party no.2; on and from 17.08.2019.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner no.1 of having committed any wrong with the informant/opposite party no.2 before 17.08.2019, the marriage of petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no.1 undisputedly took place after 17.08.2019.
16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the dissolution of the marriage between the informant/opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.1 on and from 17.08.2019 and in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner no.1 of having committed any commission or omission, on any day prior to 17.08.2019, neither the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:-
(1). The accused removed the movable property; (2) He removed it out of the possession of another person without his consent;
(3) He did so with a dishonest intention.
as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Mehra vs. State reported in AIR 1957 SC 369. 6 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
18. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the claimant that she was driven out from her matrimonial house after the undisputed dissolution of the marriage between the informant/opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.1. It is crystal clear that on and from 17.08.2019, the house of the petitioner no.1 ceased to be the matrimonial house of the informant/opposite party no.2, so if prior to that some movable property was kept by the informant/opposite party no.2 in the house of the petitioner no.1, the same will not amount to removal of movable property from the possession of the informant/opposite party no.2 by the petitioners with any dishonest intention and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
19. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting the informant/opposite party no.2 or committing criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offences punishable under Sections 504 or 506 of Indian Penal Code are not made out.
7 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:-
(A). Deceit, i.e. to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and (B) inducing the person deceived to part with property.
as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.
21. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person deceived, to part with any property and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
22. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offences are as under:-
(A). Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, deceased or infirmity to the victim;
(B). The accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
23. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing bodily pain, deceased or infirmity to any victim and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the 8 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:853 ) petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
24. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed in the Complaint Case No.500 of 2022 by learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, be quashed and set aside.
25. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed in the Complaint Case No.500 of 2022 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
26. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of January, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 16/01/2026 9 Cr. M.P. No.1530 of 2024