Jharkhand High Court
Usha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:32495)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 945 of 2023
1. Usha Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o Anil Singh
2. Anil Sharma, aged about 50 years, s/o Pashu Singh
3. Poonam Sharma @ Kritika Sharma, aged about 27 years, d/o Anil
Sharma
All are r/o Near J.R.P. Shiv Mandir, South Railway Colony,
P.O.+P.S.-Chutia, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kaveri Roy, w/o Sudhir Kumar, d/o Kalyan Roy, r/o Udhav Babu
Lane, Opposite St. Anne's Girls High School, Purulia Road,
P.O.+P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi. (Mob. No. 73600-77800)
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Sankalp Goswami, 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 of Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with C.P. Case No.
114 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has issued summons after finding prima
(2025:JHHC:32495)
facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 and
506 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-
law, petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law and the petitioner no.3 is the
sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. The allegation against the
petitioners in the complaint is that the son of the petitioner nos.1 and
2 has cheated the complainant by dishonestly inducing her to believe
that he is in deep love with her and after so deceiving, made her
marry him only to tell her later on, that he has married her for taking
revenge only and demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to be brought
by the complainant and when the complainant failed to meet the
dowry demand, the petitioners harassed the complainant with a
view to coerce her and her parents to meet the unlawful demand of
Rs.10,00,000/- . The harassment was made by beating the
complainant black and blue regularly starting from the date of
marriage i.e. on 08.02.2020 to till she was thrown out from her
matrimonial house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Keshav Kumbhakar @ Keshav vs. The State
of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024 (1) JLJR 139 wherein, in the
facts of that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
& Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and
considering the facts of the case, where there were no specific
allegations against the petitioner of that case for having committed
any particular act on any particular occasion and as the allegations
(2025:JHHC:32495)
were general and omnibus in nature, this Court quashed the entire
criminal proceeding against the petitioners of that case and submits
that like that case, in this case also, in the absence of any specific
allegation against the petitioners the entire criminal proceeding be
quashed against them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Sunita Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand &
Anr. reported in 2024 (4) JBCJ 131 [HC] wherein, this Court in the
facts of that case, relied upon the said earlier judgment as well as the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as mentioned in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgement and in the facts of that case,
where there was no time, date, place or manner of cruelty was
mentioned, quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the
petitioner of that case and submits that in this case also there is no
specific date and time hence, the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against
the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted that though the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has not found prima facie for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but
certainly, there is scope of framing of charge for the said offence at
the relevant time and in view of specific allegation against the
(2025:JHHC:32495)
petitioners of dowry demand and harassing the complainant by
beating her black and blue regularly and driving her out from her
matrimonial house without any plausible reason, both the offences
punishable under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and 323 of
Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out. Hence, it is submitted that
this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is
direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the
complainant by beating her black and blue regularly, with a view to
coerce her and the persons related to her to meet the unlawful
demand of Rs.10,00,000/- to be brought by the complainant from her
parents and also harassing her by driving her out from her
matrimonial house, without any plausible reason. The same is
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. Though, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ranchi has not mentioned that prima facie case for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act having been
made out but certainly at appropriate stage, the same may be taken
into consideration by the court concerned. Since, there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offence
punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code with specific
date and place of occurrence, this Court is of the considered view
(2025:JHHC:32495)
that the facts of this case are different from the facts of Keshav
Kumbhakar @ Keshav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra)
and Sunita Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) hence, the
ratio of those cases is not applicable to the facts of this case.
8. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with
the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Ranchi in connection with C.P. Case No. 114 of 2022 in
exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 29th October, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 31/10/2025
