[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Arvind Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                   [2026:JHHC:10278]



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No.1232 of 2020
                                       ------

1. Arvind Kumar, aged about 43 years,

2. Gopesh Kumar, aged about 41 years both sons of Shri Shankar Prasad,

3. Shankar Prasad, aged about 77 years, son of Late Nageshwar Lal, All at present residing at Flat No:7, Shakuntala & Hempushpa Apartment, Basant Vihar, Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

                                                          ...           Petitioners
                                           Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Anupama Kumar, wife of Arvind Kumar, daughter of Sri Nitya Nand Nidhi, resident of Quarter No. 7092, Sector- 4/F, PO 8t. PS: Sector 4, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha, 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 order dated 21.01.2019 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No.

[2026:JHHC:10278]

912 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and the prayer has also been made to quash the order

framing charges dated 18.09.2024 in the said case, by which the learned

Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has framed charges for the

offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the

petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is husband of the informant-

complainant, the petitioner No.2 & 3 are respectively younger brother

and father of the petitioner No.1. The allegation against them is that

after solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the

informant-complainant, they demanded dowry initially a car and

thereafter money from time to time and harassed the informant-

complainant in several manners such as frequently locking the

informant-complainant in a room and beating her. On the basis of the

written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro

(Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case

and after completion of the investigation, police submitted final report

by mentioning therein that the allegations made in the FIR are not true.

The complainant-informant filed a protest petition which was

registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 912 of 2017 and on

the basis of the same as well as the statement of the complainant under

solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the

[2026:JHHC:10278]

learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case

against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable

under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and passed the summoning order and

subsequently, framed charges vide order dated 18.09.2024. The

undisputed fact remains that so far, two witnesses of the complainant-

informant have been examined and they have been discharged after

their cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta &

Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC

667 and submits that therein, in the facts of that case in the complaint,

allegation was made that a luxury car was demanded by all the

accused persons named in the complaint and the petitioner No.2

assaulted the complainant either at Kanpur or at Mumbai and except

the demand of luxury car, no incident of harassment took place at

Ranchi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the said

judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of

Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon its own judgment in the

case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India summarized some

categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised

to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta

[2026:JHHC:10278]

Mehrotra & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2012) 10

SCC 741 and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has added by way of caution that the Supreme Court should not be

misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt

act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the

FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what it

wanted to emphasize is that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose

specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused,

specifically in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would

be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the

named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR

discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take

cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main

accused, who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical

and mental torture of the complainant-wife.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the

judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nayeem

Sheikh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in

2023:JHHC:43877 and submits that therein, the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. The State of Telangana reported

in (2018) 14 SCC 452 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

observed that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the

distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and

dowry deaths and the relatives of the husband should not be roped in

[2026:JHHC:10278]

on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their

involvement in the crime are made out.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the

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

Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttaranchal & Another reported in

(2008) 17 SCC 157 and submits that therein in para-15, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that

before a Magistrate can be said to have been taken cognizance of an

offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the

accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the

complaint or in the police report or the information received from a

source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material

filed therewith.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the order

passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the case

of Shashi Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka & Another passed in

Criminal Petition No. 5517 of 2009.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish

Mehra vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 1834 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 569 of 2012 and

submits that therein in para-15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that the power to interdict a proceeding either at the

threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is, inherent in a High

Court and such power would be available for exercise not only at the

[2026:JHHC:10278]

threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced

stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the

protest-cum-complaint petition, the informant-complainant-opposite

party No.2 has exaggerated the allegations by introducing some

concocted story. The complaint petition has been filed with a malafide

intention of harassing of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the

prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be

allowed.

11. 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 petitioners made in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition and submit that there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioners of harassing the informant-

complainant-opposite party No.2 with a view to coerce her to meet the

unlawful demand; firstly, dowry demand of a car and when

Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of the same was given by the father of the

complainant-informant-opposite party No.2; not content with that

made additional demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and because of non-

fulfillment of the demand, frequently locking the informant-

complainant-opposite party No.2 in a room and beating her; to coerce

her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is next submitted

that if the allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, then,

they are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3, 4 of the

[2026:JHHC:10278]

Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that since four witnesses

of the complainant have been examined; out of whom, the father of the

complainant who was one of the witnesses, has expired, so, only three

witnesses are to be examined on behalf of the complainant during the

trial so far. Two witnesses including the complainant-informant herself

has been examined during the trial, so, trial is at the fag end. Hence, at

this belated stage, a mini trial is required to arrive at the conclusion

that the evidence as brought on record by the complainant, is

insufficient to constitute the said offences which ought not to be done

by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

12. 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

generally the power to quash the criminal proceeding in exercise of the

power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not

be exercised at the fag end of the trial. Of course, there is no absolute

bar but the judicial constraint emanates from the principle that in

exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court and since

undisputedly, the evidence has been recorded and two out of the three

of the witnesses to be examined by the complainant, have been

examined and they have been discharged after their cross-examination,

hence, at this stage, quashing the entire criminal proceeding will

[2026:JHHC:10278]

require appreciation of the evidence that has already been brought on

record.

13. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the allegations

against them are false is concerned, the same is at best the defence of

the petitioners which the petitioners can take during the trial of the

case but it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of

its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot

consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of

the evidence put forth by the accused 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 &

Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled

principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court

in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda &

Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, 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 482 CrPC. 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 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)"

[2026:JHHC:10278]

15. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Aryan Singh & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

SC 379, para-10 of which reads as under:-

"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not"." (Emphasis supplied)

16. Now coming to the facts of the case, there are direct and specific

allegations against the petitioners that the petitioners treated the

informant-complainant-opposite party No.2 with cruelty by harassing

her by taking money sent by her father to her i.e. Rs.10,000/- per

month. Apart from that, they used to frequently lock the informant-

complainant-opposite party No.2 in a room and used to beat her; as a

part of their strategy to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of

money of the petitioners. Hence, even if the entire allegations made

against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, which

[2026:JHHC:10278]

is of course to be treated as true at this stage, the same is sufficient to

constitute the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian