Jharkhand High Court

Jaya Kindo vs Cr.M.P. No.2421 Of 2024 on 30 October, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                   (2025:JHHC:32676)




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr.M.P. No. 2421 of 2024


1. Jaya Kindo, aged about 27 years, d/o Basant Kindo, r/o H.No.72,
  Gitilpiri, Hatia Station Road, Hatia, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi,
  Jharkhand-834003
2. Gaurav Navin Kindo @ Navin Gaurav Kindo, aged about 30 years,
  s/o Basant Kindo, r/o H.No.72, Gitilpiri, Near Assri Garden, Hatia
  Station Road, Hatia, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-
  834003
3. Urwashi Kindo, aged about 55 years, w/o Basant Kindo, r/o, Hatia
  Station, Hatia Railway Colony, Gitilpiri, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia,
  Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003
4. Niraj Kumar Bhagat, aged about 34 years, s/o Surendra Bhagat, r/o
  House No. 56, Bhagat Lodge, Bardwan Compound Lalpur, P.O.-
  G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001
5. Deepak Bhagat @ Deepak Oraon, aged about 38 years, s/o Baldeo
  Bhagat, r/o H. No. 1/R23, Edalhatu, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.-Lower
  Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008
6. Shabnam Bhagat @ Shabnam Oraon, aged about 47 years, w/o
  Deepak Bhagat, r/o H. No. 1/R23, Edalhatu, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.-
  Lower Bazar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008
7. Rupci Kujur, aged about 54 years, w/o Ajaydarshan Kujur, r/o
  Vill.-Murma, VTC Murma, P.S.-Mandar, P.O.-Murma, Mandar,
  Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835205
8. Chandra Darshan Kujur, aged about 21 years, s/o Ajay Darshan
  Kujur, r/o Vill.-Murma, P.S.-Mandar, P.O.-Murma, Mandar, Dist.-
  Ranchi, Jharkhand-835205
9. Manoj Kumar Bhagat, s/o Shri Surendra Bhagat, aged about 41
  years, r/o Near Vikas Bhawan, Lower Bardwan Compound Lalpur,
  P.O.- Ranchi G.P.O., P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001


                                    ....               Petitioners
                       Versus

                                                    Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2024
                             1
                                                                    (2025:JHHC:32676)




            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Kismanti Minz, d/o Mahavir Oraon, r/o Siddharth Enclave, Hawai
                 Nagar,     Hatia,   P.O.-Hatia,   P.S.-Jagarnathpur,       Dist.-Ranchi,
                 Jharkhand-834004                               ....
                   Opp. Parties


                                        PRESENT

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

                                             .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate : Mr. Mrinalini Adela Teti, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kumar Minz, Advocate : Mr. Elwin N. Tirkey, Advocate : Mr. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate : Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. with the

prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of

Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 registered for the offences

punishable under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under

Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner no.9 being

the husband and the petitioner nos.1 to 8 being the relatives of the

petitioner no.9, in furtherance of common intention with the co-

accused persons treated the informant with cruelty, with a view to

coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of a four-wheeler vehicle

(2025:JHHC:32676)

and demanded the dowry of the said four-wheeler vehicle. There is

direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the

informant by falsely claiming that she is under the influence of

ghost; only because she did not meet their unlawful dowry demand

of a four-wheeler vehicle. The petitioners looted the gold and silver

jewelry including the mangalsutra of the informant. The act of cruelty

of the petitioners did not stop with the informant only and they went

on to harass the mother of the informant also in connection of the

demand of dowry and because of the shock, the mother of the

informant died of cardiac arrest on 28.04.2021. There is further

allegation that the petitioners being not contented with even the

death of the mother of the informant, went on to the extent of

destroying the house of the informant situated at Ranchi on

17.06.2021. They also threatened the informant to broke her marriage

with the petitioner no.9 because of non-fulfilment of demand of

dowry.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,

police took up investigation of the case and at present the

investigation of the case is going on.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Vineet Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 that in paragraph no.41 thereof, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the High Court

cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the

categories as illustratively enumerated in the case of State of

(2025:JHHC:32676)

Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is next

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

allegations against the petitioners are all false and the informant and

her family members have cheated the petitioners by claiming that

the informant is working as Civil Judge, Junior Division. It is then

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

informant suppressed the material fact that she was divorcee before

marrying the petitioner no.9. Relying upon the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12354 of

2024 dated 29.11.2024 in the case of Mukesh & Ors. vs. The State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the same being not a judgement about only an order, certainly

whatever observed therein cannot be treated as ratio but it can be

treated as a obiter dicta and therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has observed that in a petition for quashing either under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, a wider challenge is available including the challenge on the

ground of abuse of process of law and in such proceeding the

accused can rely upon documents which are not the part of the

charge sheet. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this

criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the

prayer and submits that none of the conditions as mentioned in

paragraph no. 102 of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) is

made out in the facts of the case. It is then submitted by the learned

(2025:JHHC:32676)

Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the

allegations made against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute

each of the offences, for which the FIR has been registered. Learned

Spl. P.P. relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in

(2012) 9 SCC 460, paragraph no. 27.12 of which reads as under:-

"27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution" (emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

enlisted the principle with reference to which court should exercise

the jurisdiction under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and

it has been categorically held that the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. cannot take into consideration the external materials given

by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was

disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal and the court

has to consider the record and the document annexed therewith by

the prosecution.

7. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for

the opposite party no.2 that the undisputed fact remains that even if

the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to

be true in its entirety, all the offences for which the FIR has been

registered is in fact, made out and the defence of the petitioners if

any can be raised during the trial but the same cannot be a ground to

quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this

(2025:JHHC:32676)

criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be

dismissed.

8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, in the case of Harjinder Singh v. State of

Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029,

paragraph no.11 of which reads as under:-

"11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self- destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs." (Emphasis supplied)

that the defence of the accused person cannot be considered before

the prosecution adduces evidence.

9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled

(2025:JHHC:32676)

principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court

in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of

which reads as under :-

" Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)

10. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner

and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be

considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by

the High Court, as that would be the job of the trial court, as has

been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.

reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains

that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of

making the dowry demand of a four-wheeler vehicle and harassing

the informant with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful

demand of four-wheeler vehicle.