Binay Harodia @ Vinay Harodia vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6722 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6722 Jhar
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Binay Harodia @ Vinay Harodia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                       [2025:JHHC:33343]



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No.2075 of 2022
                                      ------

Binay Harodia @ Vinay Harodia, aged about 39 yrs. S/o Deo Prasad Agarwal, House No. 169B, Katras Road, In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Matkuria, P.O. & P.S. Matkuria, Dist. Dhanbad.

                                                          ...              Petitioner
                                             Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Khushbu Havodia, D/o Binod Dalniya, R/o In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Bankmore, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad. ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate Ms. Shabana Perween, 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 as well

as the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code differing

from Final Form submitted by the police against the petitioner on the

[2025:JHHC:33343]

basis of the materials available in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary,

which are the statements of the different witnesses stated before the

Investigating Officer of the case.

3. It is submitted at the Bar that the case is next fixed on

19.11.2025 for consideration of framing of charge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment

of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harshad Singh &

Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated 12.07.2019

passed in Cr.M.P. No.284 of 2017, submits that the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the court is

not supposed to act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or to act as a

post-office by accepting the findings of police report but if the court

disagrees or differs with the closure report; then, it is required to

assign cogent reasons for not accepting or disagreeing with the

findings of the police. It is next submitted that several witnesses have

stated before the Investigating Officer of the case, including the son of

the informant/opposite party No.2 and the petitioner that they have

not seen any incriminating conduct of the petitioner. It is then

submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of his

marriage with the informant/opposite party No.2, by a decree of

divorce but the same has since been dismissed by the Family Court.

The petitioner has filed an appeal against the dismissal order of the

Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce of the petitioner,

before this Court and the same is sub judice. It is further submitted

that the informant/opposite party No.2 has given in writing

[2025:JHHC:33343]

acknowledging her mistake of saying that she will commit suicide

and has undertaken not to repeat the same. Hence, it is submitted that

under such circumstances, the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

5. 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 this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the witnesses whose

statement appears in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 namely Khushboo Harodia,

Binod Dalmia, Rajshekhar Dalmia and Manju Devi respectively have

categorically stated about the petitioner that he is harassing the

informant/opposite party No.2 by coercing her to meet his unlawful

demand of more money, to be brought by the informant from his

brother and indulged in heinous acts by falsely alleging and going to

the extent of attributing the illicit relationship of the informant with

other males. It is next submitted that there is also allegation against

the petitioner of taking photograph of the informant/opposite party

No.2 while she was naked and sleeping after removing her clothes

and the petitioner is threatening to make them viral unless the

informant/opposite party No.2 and her family members meet the

unlawful demand of the petitioner of more money to be brought by

the informant; hence, the same is sufficient to constituent the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly

submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without

any merit, be dismissed.

[2025:JHHC:33343]

6. 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 that in

order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients for constituting the said

offence are as under:-

(1) A woman was married;

(2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in inter alia-

(i) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand;