Jharkhand High Court
Singrai @ Singray Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:34765]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3149 of 2024
------
Singrai @ Singray Murmu, son of Durga Murmu, aged about 35
years, resident of Pradhandih (Dabra), Post office & P.S.
Kharsawan, District Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sonia @ Soniya Hansda, Wife of Singray Murmu and D/o Late
Bikram Hansda, aged 26 years, residence of Village Pradhan
Tola Begbera, P.O. & P.S. Bagbera, District East Singhbhum
At present Residence:-
1. Cross Road No.28, Quarter No.X18 Sidhgora Jamshedpur
PIN 831009 and P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sidhgora, District Jamshedpur.
2. Quarter No.L-4/8 Burma Road Burmamines, P.O. and P.S.
Burmamines, Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kismati Minj, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.PP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, 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 order dated
23.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XXI,
Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.152 of 2022, whereby the learned
Magistrate found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for
[2025:JHHC:34765]
having committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner after his marriage
with the complainant treated his wife with cruelty, by harassing her in
several manners by having relationship with another lady and not
providing adequate sustenance and tying the neck of the complainant
with a rope and used to lock the complainant in his house while he was
going outside and was not allowing the complainant to prepare food;
only to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioner of
bringing money from her paternal house. There is also allegation
against the petitioner of threatening the complainant and criminally
intimidating her by coming to her house and forcibly taking away the
iron bangle worn by the complainant; given at the time of her marriage
and made her sign on some blank paper. The petitioner also told the
complainant that complainant is not his wife. On the basis of the
complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and
statement of inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate found prima facie
case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nitin Ahluwalia Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. passed in reported in 2025 INSC 1128, paragraph 9 of
which reads as under:
"9. Here, the respondent filed the complaint after the grant of divorce, a
month later. Granted that the same is not expressly prohibited by law, it
certainly begs the question as to why despite having been separated from
the appellant for almost three years to the date, did the respondent
consider filing an application with the police at that relevant time. To
entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the
[2025:JHHC:34765]
fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour, one by the Courts in
Austria ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia and
the other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting the appellant's prayer for
grant of divorce, does not appear far-fetched." (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that as in that case the complaint was filed after a
month after the grant of divorce, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
considering the facts that the complaint was filed almost three years
after the parties separated in that case and the facts of that case where
the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has two orders
in his favour, one by the Court of Austria and the another by the court
of Australia ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia
and the other by the Courts in Australia accepting the appellant's
prayer for grant of divorce; relying upon its own judgement in the case
of Digambar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3836, quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the
marriage between the petitioner and the complainant has been
dissolved as per the customs prevalent in the society of the petitioner
and the complainant and after dissolution of the marriage this case
having been instituted, the same be quashed and set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer
and drawing attention of this Court towards the deposition of the
petitioner, who was examined as D.W.-1 in Original Maintenance Case
No.35 of 2022 filed by the complainant, it is submitted that in
paragraph-21 thereof, the petitioner has categorically stated that he is
always ready and willing to pay the expenses to his wife because she is
his wife but the complainant must live with the petitioner always and
[2025:JHHC:34765]
the petitioner will look after her. It is next submitted that the petitioner
was desirous of keeping his wife with dignity. It is also submitted that
this deposition was recorded on 19.08.2023 so this goes to show that on
19.08.2023, the complainant was the wife of the petitioner. The
complaint was filed on 11.01.2022 so on the date of filing of the
complaint, the complainant was admittedly the wife of the petitioner. It
is next submitted that as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in paragraph-9 of the judgment of Nitin Ahluwalia Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that filing of a complaint after dissolution of marriage for the offence
which was committed when the marriage was subsisting; is not
expressly prohibited. So, assuming for the sake of argument though not
admitting that marriage between the parties has been dissolved still that
is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding; even though the
prosecution of the petitioner for the offences which was committed
while the marriage was subsisting, is not prohibited in law. Hence, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without being 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 the only ground upon which the
petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is that the
marriage between the petitioner and the complainant has been
dissolved as per the customs prevalent in India.
8. After going through the materials on record, this Court is of the
considered view that prima facie it appears that at least on 19.08.2023 the
petitioner admitted that the complainant is his wife. The complainant
[2025:JHHC:34765]
has categorically stated in paragraph 15 of the deposition in the said
Original Maintenance Case No.35 of 2022, when she was examined as
P.W.-1, that it is false to say that the divorce has taken place between the
petitioner and the complainant in front of Machi Baba as per Aadiwasi
rites and custom.
9. Be that as it may, since it is a highly disputed fact as to whether
there is any substance in the claim of the petitioner that the marriage
between him and the complainant has been dissolved so this Court is of
the considered view that such a highly disputed question of fact cannot
be determined by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Otherwise also as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) in paragraph 9 that there is no express
prohibition in law of filing of a complaint by the wife against the
husband after dissolution of their marriage for the offences which were
committed prior to the dissolution of the marriage by the husband.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner
in this Cr.M.P. be allowed in exercise of its power under Section 528 of
the B.N.S.S., 2023.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without
any merit is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th of November, 2025
AFR/ Madhav
Uploaded on 26/11/2025
