Jharkhand High Court
Lalit Oraon Aged About 35 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2813 of 2021
------
1. Lalit Oraon aged about 35 years son of Bandhan Oraon;
2. Rita Kumari @ Rita Oraon aged about 23 years W/o Lalit Oraon;
3. Bandhan Oraon aged about 48 years S/o Late Dasai Oraon;
4. Sewati Oraon @ Sewat Oraon aged about 46 years W/o Bandhan
Oraon;
All resident of village Ugra Chapar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Senha,
District Lohardaga. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Savitri Oraon W/o Lalit Oraon, D/o Sukra Oraon, resident of
village Ugra Chapri Toli, P.O. and P.S. Senha, District-Lohardaga at
present resident of Jalka Kend Toli, P.O. and P.S. Ghaghra, District
Gumla. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Kismanti Minj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the informant/opposite
party No.2 but no one turns up on behalf of the informant in spite of repeated
calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out
of Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.25 of 2021 registered under Section
498A/494/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the
husband, petitioner no.3 being the father in law, petitioner no.4 being the
mother in law and petitioner no.2 being the concubine of the petitioner no.1
have treated the informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, intentionally
insulted and criminally intimidated her in furtherance of their common
intention and demanded dowry.
5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant/opposite
party No.2, police registered Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.25 of 2021 and
took up investigation of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is still
going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is next submitted that
the informant requested the petitioner No.1 to marry her and upon the
petitioner no.1 refusing to marry her, the informant has filed this false case. It is
further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not the father of the child of the
informant, the allegation made against the petitioner no.1 is false, hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit
that in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot
conduct a mini trial in order to ascertain the veracity of the defence of the
petitioner and the same can only be agitated at the time of the full dress trial of
the case. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegations against
the petitioners being the husband and his relatives, having treated the
informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, intentionally insulted her to
provoke her to commit an offence and criminally intimidated her and the said
offences have been committed by the petitioner in furtherance of their common
intention, hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the
entire criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being
without any merit, be dismissed
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil
Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which
reads as under :-
" Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has
virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at
this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC.
As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini
trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under
Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the
application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.
(Emphasis supplied)
that the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particulars of case and cannot
hold a mini trial.
9. It is also a settled principle of law that a genuine prosecution cannot be
stifled with in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC as has been held in
the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remain that
there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners being the husband
and the relatives of the husband, of treating the informant with cruelty, caused
hurt to her, intentionally insulted her to provoke commission of offence by her
and criminally intimidated her and the petitioners have committed the said
offences, in furtherance of their common intention with the intention of
meeting the unlawful demand of dowry. The only plea of the petitioners for
quashing the criminal miscellaneous petition is that the allegation made in the
FIR is false, certainly, such plea can be taken by the petitioner in their defence
during the full-dress trial of the case, but falsity of allegation is certainly not a
ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding by the High Court, in exercise
of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no
justifiable reason to allow the prayer of the petitioners made in this Cr.M.P,
hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of October, 2024
AFR/ Abhiraj
