[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dobair Ahmad Siddique @ Dobair Ahamad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:37789)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 194 of 2024
1. Dobair Ahmad Siddique @ Dobair Ahamad, aged about 67 years,
s/o Amdullah Siddiqui
2. Khushnama Begum @ K. Khatoon, aged about 62 years, w/o Dobair
Ahmad Siddique
Both are resident of Village-Manpur, P.O. & P.S.-Khaira, Dist.-Saran
(Bihar)
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anvar Ali Khan, s/o Marhum Abdul Hakim, resident of House
No.16, Tetulmari, Sijua Area No.04, P.O. & P.S.-Jogta, Dist.-
Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramchender Sahu, Advocate
: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
: Ms. Ashna Khanam, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Dhanbad in connection with Jogta P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022,
corresponding to G.R. No.1793 of 2023 whereby and where under,
(2025:JHHC:37789)
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306
and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners also
even though they were not sent up for trial, by deferring with the
charge sheet.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
case is still pending for appearance of the petitioners and trial is
yet to begin.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are the accused
persons of the said Jogta P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022. The allegation
against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 and 2 are
respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law and in
furtherance of common intention with their son who is the
husband of the victim- Subi Khatoon committed the dowry death
of Subi Khatoon. The undisputed fact remains that Subi Khatoon
solemnized marriage with the son of the petitioner on 03.05.2017
and she died on 26.07.2022 otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of the marriage and there was
allegation that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty
and harassment by her husband and the petitioners in connection
with demand of dowry.
5. In the charge sheet submitted in the case only against the
husband of the victim lady and he only was sent up for trial
whereas the petitioners and two others whose descriptions were
shown in column 12 of the charge sheet, were not sent up for trial
(2025:JHHC:37789)
because of insufficiency of evidence against them. The learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad took note of the materials
available in the record that after marriage Subi Khatoon was
treated with cruelty in connection with unlawful demand of
Rs.20,00,000/-. To coerce to her to meet the said unlawful demand
she was abused and assaulted and her husband threatened her of
solemnizing second marriage with another woman. The learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad considered the statement of
the father of the deceased appearing in paragraph no. 4 of the case
diary wherein he has categorically stated that inter alia the
petitioners being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased were continuously harassing the deceased victim, for
fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- soon before her
death. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased died
because of hanging. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Dhanbad also considered the statement of the informant and
independent witnesses also to the effect that they have stated
about the dowry demand made after the marriage and the
deceased was repeatedly assaulted in connection with unlawful
demand of dowry. The witnesses whose statement appearing in
paragraph no. 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary have stated
about the informant being subjected to cruelty in connection with
demand of dowry and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad came to the conclusion that there is
prima facie case made out against the petitioners also besides their
(2025:JHHC:37789)
son i.e. Danish Mohammad Joyeb Siddiqui for having committed
the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the said offences.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nupur Talwar
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi & Anr. reported in
(2012) 2 SCC 188 submits that in paragraph no.22 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its
own judgment in the case of India Carat (P) Ltd. vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (1989) 2 SCC 132, paragraph no. 16 of
which reads as under:-
"16. The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon
receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is
entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b)
of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is
made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into
account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police
during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence
complained of and order the issue of process to the accused.
Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take
cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an
opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the
accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by
the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to
the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of
the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under Section
190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the
procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for
taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is
open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. The
High Court was, therefore, wrong in taking the view that the
Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not
entitled to direct the registration of a case against the second
respondent and order the issue of summons to him."
and submits that learned Magistrate has power to ignore the
conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and
(2025:JHHC:37789)
independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the
investigation and take cognizance of the case.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has not
independently applied its mind to the facts of the case in arriving
at the conclusion different from that of the opinion of the
investigating officer. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this
criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has exercised the power as
per the principle of law settled in the case of India Carat (P) Ltd.
vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and there is no illegality in the
order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. Hence, it
is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that in view of the principle of law settled in the case India Carat
(P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (supra), the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad is well within its right to ignore the
conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and
independently apply the mind to the facts emerging from the
investigation and took cognizance of the case if he thinks fit in
(2025:JHHC:37789)
exercise of the power under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and direct issue of process to the accused.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has rightly
discussed the materials available in the record mentioning the
paragraph numbers of the case diary and other materials and by a
reasoned order after application of mind arrived at the conclusion
different from the investigating officer, in respect of the
petitioners while agreeing with the conclusion of the investigating
officer in respect of two other persons namely Adil Siddique and
Khushi Khatoon.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court of the considered
view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order
in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th December, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 18/12/2025
