[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Md. Naimuddin @ Naim Noori @ Naimuddin ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:36106)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2954 of 2024
------
Md. Naimuddin @ Naim Noori @ Naimuddin Ansari aged about 51
- year-old, son of late Md. Yusuf Ansari by faith - Islam, by
occupation- Advocate residence at: - Timber Gali, Bhitha, Kanke
Road, P.O., Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand, UID No.-923519030443 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shahla Tabassum W/O Md. Naimuddin Ansari aged about 50year
old, son of late Md. Yu nuf Ansari by faith- Islam, by occupation-
Advocate residence at:- Timber Gali, Bhitha, Kanke Road, P.O,
Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : In Person
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Dr. S. K. Chaturvedi, 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 F.I.R. of Gonda P.S.
Case No.94 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3198 of 2023
including the order dated 21.11.2023 whereby and where under on the
basis of the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner by the police,
the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class XXI, Ranchi has taken
(2025:JHHC:36106)
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while
studying in I.A. married the informant but as the informant could not
bear any child he again married with Nilufar Parween and for the last
10-11 years till the institution of the F.I.R., the petitioner is not talking to
the informant and living with his second wife and he is assaulting her
and abusing her. The petitioner along with his second wife has looted
the Patta of the house constructed by the informant and assaulted her
and threw out her from the house. The petitioner is having illicit
relationship with two other ladies and on being protested against the
same, the informant has been thrown out from her house. On the basis
of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered
Gonda P.S. Case No.94 of 2023 and took up the investigation of the case
and after completion of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable
under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner, appearing in person, relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghusabhai
Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Others vs. State of Gujarat passed in
Criminal Appeal No.262 of 2009 decided on 18.02.2015 and submits that
in para-20 thereof it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India that illicit relationship of the husband will not amount to
cruelty as envisaged in the first limb of Section 498 A IPC and the same
(2025:JHHC:36106)
cannot be termed as a mental cruelty of such a degree that it would
drive the wife to commit suicide.
5. The petitioner, appearing in person, next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in 2008 7
Supreme 641 para-11 of which reads as under:-
"11. Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of
"cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C.
postulates that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would
constitute "cruelty". Such wilful conduct, which is likely to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to
"cruelty". Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that
harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand, would also constitute "cruelty" for the
purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. It is plain that as per clause
(b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel
for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every
harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning
of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the
harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the
woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful
demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A
I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only
when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a
woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful
demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty"
punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C."
and submits that harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is
only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a
woman or any other person related to her to meet unlawful demand for
property etc. then only it will amount to cruelty punishable under
Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
(2025:JHHC:36106)
6. The petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of
Haryana & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.2379 of 2024 arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.4912 of 2022 decided on 03.05.2024 and submits
that in para-22 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that it would be a travesty of justice to hold that the
proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the
stage of F.I.R. but not if it has materialized into a charge-sheet.
7. The petitioner next relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Devi & Others vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in [2009 (2) East Cr C 157 (Jhr)] and submits that in
that case, as the criminal case was filed much after filing of the
matrimonial suit by the accused for seeking divorce against the
informant, it was observed that the informant has filed the criminal case
with malafide intention and ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance.
8. The petitioner then submits that in this case also, the petitioner
has first filed O.S. No.681 of 2023 in Family Court on 27.08.2023 to
dissolve his marriage with the informant and also filed O.S. No.697 of
2023 in the court of Sub Judge, Ranchi for a decree of injunction against
the defendant in respect of the landed property of Khata No.73 at
Bhitha Post, Ranchi. Hence, it is submitted that this false case has been
instituted for wrecking vengeance.
9. The petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Patna High Court in the case of Rahul Kumar vs. The State of Bihar &
Another reported in [2025 (1) East Cr C 196 (Pat)] wherein the Hon'ble
(2025:JHHC:36106)
Patna High Court quashed the F.I.R. which was instituted after 16 days
of delay without any plausible explanation and submits that as in this
case there is a delay of 57 days, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as
prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
10. 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
submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to refer Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
under:-
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
'cruelty' means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
(2025:JHHC:36106)
A plain reading of the explanation which defines 'cruelty' for the
purpose of Section 498 A goes to show that 'cruelty' as defined in
Explanation (a) of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is made out
upon commission of any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman.
12. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the only allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner used to "Marpit" the informant and
drove the informant out from the house. This cannot amount to
harassment with a view to coerce the woman to meet the unlawful
demand and thus the same will not amount to 'cruelty' under
Explanation (b) of the Section 498 A of the Indian penal Code. Further,
in absence of any allegation that the wilful conduct of the petitioner was
of such a nature that it was likely to drive the informant to commit
suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life or health, this Court is of
the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety; still the same is
insufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty as has been defined in
Explanation (a) of the Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
13. In view of the discussions made above, as the materials in the
record are insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, hence, the continuation of this
criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the F.I.R. of Gonda P.S.
(2025:JHHC:36106)
Case No.94 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3198 of 2023
including the order taking cognizance dated 21.11.2023 in connection
with the said case be quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Gonda P.S. Case No.94 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No.3198 of 2023 including the order taking
cognizance dated 21.11.2023 in connection with the said case is quashed
and set aside against the petitioner.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 02nd of December, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 10/12/2025
