Jharkhand High Court
Bina Devi @ Bina Debi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:11433)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2753 of 2017
------
1. Bina Devi @ Bina Debi, W/o Bakshu Prasad Mehta.
2. Bakshu Prasad Mehta, S/o Late Bhola Mahto.
3. Sanjay Kumar Mehta, S/o Bakshu Prasad Mehta.
All (petitioner Nos.1 to 3) residents of Village :- Jamuwari, P.O. :-
Ichak, P.S. : Ichak, Distt :- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Seema Mehta (Devi), W/o Sanjay Kumar Mehta and daughter of
Late Hari Lal Mehta, Resident of Village :- Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. :-
Domchanch, District:- Koderma, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwary, 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 a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Revision No.61 of 2017 whereby and where
under the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has dismissed the Criminal
Revision which was preferred against the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S.
Case No.191 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.4166 of 2012 by which the
(2025:JHHC:11433)
learned Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh rejected the petition filed by
the petitioners for their discharge.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No.2 herein filed
Complaint Case No.1204 of 2012 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribagh; which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.c. by the said court, Ichak P.S. Case No.191 of 2012 was registered
involving the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and police took up the
investigation of the case. The allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioners being respectively the mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of
the informant/opposite party No.2, treated the informant/opposite party No.2
with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry of a motorcycle, colour
television and cash of Rs.50,000/- to be brough by her from her father's house.
The father of the informant/opposite party No.2 was not able to fulfill the
dowry demand of the petitioners and because of non-fulfillment of the same,
the informant/opposite party No.2 was subjected to cruelty. Police after
investigation of the case submitted Final Form; finding the allegations to be not
true but differing from the same, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences. Subsequently, a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
was filed on 22.09.2014. The learned Magistrate found that prima facie there is
sufficient materials available in the record to frame charges and rejected the
said petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioners vide his
order dated 19.05.2017 in G.R. Case No.4166 of 2012. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.61 of 2017 in the court of
Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. The learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh
(2025:JHHC:11433)
considered the limited scope of discharge and considering the fact that there is
sufficient materials available in the record to frame charges; found that there is
no merit in the said Criminal Revision and dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed
Cr.M.P. No.1010 of 2013 challenging the order taking cognizance before this
Court but on 03.09.2013, the petitioners sought permission of this Court to
withdraw the said Cr.M.P. No.1010 of 2013 in respect of the petitioner Nos.1, 2
and 3, with liberty to take all the pleas which have been taken in that
application, at the stage of discharge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions
Judge failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. It is further
submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties after taking
a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by the informant/opposite party No.2 from the
petitioner No.3 in First Appeal No.89 of 2018 filed in this Court against the
judgment dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No.152 of 2012 whereby and where under
the suit preferred by the petitioner No.3 for decree of divorce against the
opposite party No.2, has been decreed and the marriage between them has
been dissolved and the said First Appeal was disposed of; in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties. It is next submitted that in view of
the said facts, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in
the instant Cr.M.P. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that the very fact that the
(2025:JHHC:11433)
petitioners have withdrawn the earlier Cr.M.P. No.1010 of 2013 challenging the
cognizance order, goes to show that prima facie there is sufficient materials
available in the record to show that the petitioners have committed the offence
punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of treating the informant/opposite party No.2
with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and harassing her as also the
demand of dowry itself. It is next submitted that the dissolution of the marriage
subsequent to institution of the case or disposal of the First Appeal filed against
the order of the Family Court, Hazaribagh, dissolving the marriage between the
parties will not obliterate the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act committed by
the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that as sufficient materials are available
in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, hence,
neither the learned Magistrate has committed any error in rejecting the petition
filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. nor the learned Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh has committed any error in dismissing the Criminal Revision
No.61 of 2017. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit,
be dismissed.
7. 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 as already indicated above; there is sufficient material available in the
record to suggest that there is allegation against the petitioners of treating the
informant/opposite party No.2 with cruelty and harassing her in connection
(2025:JHHC:11433)
with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry of a motorcycle, colour television and
cash of Rs.50,000/-; which could not be fulfilled by the parents of the
informant/opposite party No.2, because of poverty. If such allegations are
considered to be true in their entirety, there are prima facie materials available in
the record to constitute the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. As has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite
party No.2 that the dissolution of the marriage between the parties after
commission of the offence, is certainly not a ground to obliterate the offence
already committed prior to dissolution of the marriage.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there
is no justifiable reason warranting interference of this Court with the impugned
order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.191 of 2012 corresponding to
G.R. No.4166 of 2012 or the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2017 in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of April, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
