Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Murari @ Krishna Murari Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:11966 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2737 of 2023
------
1. Krishna Murari @ Krishna Murari Prasad, s/o Late Nandlal Sao
aged about 73 years R/o- Infront of UCO Bank Patna City P.O.-
Begmpur, P.S.-Thana Chowk, District Patna (Bihar).
2. Vidhya Devi w/o Krishna Murari Prasad aged about 67 years
R/o-Infront of UCO Bank Patna City, P.O.-Begmpur, P.S. Thana
Chowk, District Patna (Bihar) City, P.O.-Patna City, P.S.-Patna
City, District Patna (Bihar).
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Lata Kriti D/o Bijoy Kumar, W/o Doctor Amrish Kumar,
resident of Sapna Bhawan Gilan Chowk Near Jain Middle School,
P.O.-Sadar, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate
: Mr. Shamaiel Raza, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2,
but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not press this Cr.M.P. on behalf
of the petitioner no.1 as the petitioner no.1 has died and the learned counsel
for the petitioners file the photocopy of the death certificate of the petitioner
( 2025:JHHC:11966 )
no.1. Keep the same in the record. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous
petition is rejected as not pressed; so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned.
4. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, 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 including the order taking cognizance dated
28.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.34 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. No.286 of 2021; by which the learned Magistrate
differing from the Final Form submitted by the police, by which the police
did not send up the petitioner for trial, formed an opinion that there is prima
facie material available in the case diary inter alia against the petitioner no.2
to make out a case under Section 498A, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and ordered for issuance of summons
to her.
5. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.2 being the mother-
in-law of the informant/opposite party no.2 treated her with cruelty in
connection with demand of dowry.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
& Others v. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 submits
that therein it has been held that, where the allegations made against the
accused persons of the case are general and omnibus, such accused persons
( 2025:JHHC:11966 )
do not warrant prosecution; by observing thus in paragraph-18, which reads
as under:-
"18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of
the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all
accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her
pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have
been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused
in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general
and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account
of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined
the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the
appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution." (Emphasis
supplied)
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that the main
allegation is against the co-accused son of the petitioner no.2, who is the
husband of the informant/opposite party no.2 and it is apparent that there
is strained relationship between the informant and her husband because of
an alleged illicit relationship of the husband of the informant/opposite
party no.2; with a lady namely Kanak and in the same, the petitioner no.2
has no role to play, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in
the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
8. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer of the petitioner no.2 made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the
learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality because of the
overwhelming material available in the case diary showing the involvement
( 2025:JHHC:11966 )
of the petitioner no.2 in the alleged offence, hence, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. 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 by now it is a settled principle of law, more so, when
the offence involved is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and the accused persons are the relatives of the husband of the
informant-victim, that if the allegations against the such accused persons are
general and omnibus in nature; such accused persons do not warrant
prosecution.
10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the
petitioner no.2 is that the petitioner no.2 told the informant to do as her son
is telling her to do and on one occasion she told the informant to go away, so
that her son can bring a doctor wife, and that in the considered opinion of
this Court is insufficient for the learned ACJM, Hazaribagh to have differed
from the charge sheet by which the petitioner no.2 was not sent up for trial,
more so, when the independent witnesses whose statements appeared in
para-49 to 54 in which the statement of the independent witnesses examined
during the investigation of the case has been recorded by the IO of the case,
goes to show that the allegation of demand of dowry is false. Hence, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the learned ACJM, Hazaribagh has
committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance against the petitioner no.2
vide order dated 28.01.2021 in Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.34 of 2019.
Therefore, the continuation of this entire criminal proceeding including the
( 2025:JHHC:11966 )
order taking cognizance dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S.
Case No.34 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.286 of 2021, be quashed and
set aside against the petitioner no.2.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.34 of
2019 corresponding to G.R. No.286 of 2021, is quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner No.2 only.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd of April, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
