Shamima Khatoon @ Shamima Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 596 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shamima Khatoon @ Shamima Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                            ( 2026:JHHC:2761 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No.1264 of 2022
                              ------

1. Shamima Khatoon @ Shamima Khatoon, aged about 65 years, W/o Maksood Alam,

2. Sahbaz Khan @ Shahbaz Alam, aged about 38 years, S/o Maksood Alam,

3. Sumbul Pravin @ Sumbul Tazeen aged about 37 years, W/o Sahbaaz Khan @ Md. Shabaz Alam Khan, Sl. No.1 to 3 R/o Upri Kuli Near Idgah, Amlapada, P.O. & P.S.- Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad.

4. Sabina Pravin @ Zeenat Khanam, aged about 40 years, W/o Anwar Pravez R/o Hamind Nagar, Balu Banker, BCCL Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad.

5. Shama Pravin @ Shama Khatoon, aged about 50 years, W/o Wasim Akhtar Khan, R/o-6/53-Kanishka Road, P.O. & P.S.- Durgapur, Dist.-Burdawan, West Bengal.

6. Khurshida Khatoon @ Khurshida Khanam aged about 46 years, W/o Nazeer Khan @ Najiruddin R/o Alam Ganj Masjid, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Patna (Bihar).

7. Juli @ Nusrat Khatoon @ Nusrat Khanam, aged about 39 years, W/o Sabir Khan @ Sabir Md. Akbar, R/o Road No.13, Harron Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Phulwari, Dist.-Patna (Bihar).

                                             ...               Petitioners
                                Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sabnam Parween, D/o Manjar Ali Khan, W/o Faiz Alam, R/o New Islampur, Pandarpala, P.O.-B. Polytechnic, P.S.-Bhuli, Dist.- Dhanbad.

                                             ...             Opposite Parties
                                ------



                                                        ( 2026:JHHC:2761 )




             For the Petitioners       : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
                                       : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
             For the State             : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
                                       : Ms. Ashna Khanam, 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 a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.240 of 2020

corresponding to G.R. No.901 of 2021 including the order taking

cognizance dated 24.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections

323, 341, 498A, 120B, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner in

criminal conspiracy with each other as well as in furtherance of the

common intention with each other being the relatives of the husband of

the informant harassed the informant with a view to coerce her and her

father to meet the unlawful dowry demand and together caused hurt to

her, wrongfully restrained her, committed criminal intimidation and

intentionally insulted her in such a manner to provoke her to commit

breach of peace or commit any other offence. Further, there is allegations

( 2026:JHHC:2761 )

against the petitioners of demanding dowry from the informant. Police

after investigation of the case and after recording the statement of the

witnesses and collecting other materials, found the allegations to be true

and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. On the basis of the

charge sheet submitted by the police, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences in respect of

which the charge sheet has been submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the judgement of the

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

The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/SC/0592/2010 and

submits that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

observed that it is a matter of common experience that most of these

complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment

over trivial issues without proper deliberations and at the same time,

rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are

also a matter of serious concern.

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

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in

MANU/SC/0163/2022 wherein in the facts of that case where there was a

second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the

accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her of

terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case.

( 2026:JHHC:2761 )

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that the allegations

against the petitioners are false and the petitioner no.1 is an old and ailing

lady and some of the petitioners are living in far away places and they

have been falsely implicated in this case, hence, it is submitted that the

prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Spl.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 the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the

undisputed fact remains that the police during the investigation of the

case found that each of the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with each

other and in furtherance of their common intention were harassing the

informant with a view to coerce the informant and her father to meet their

unlawful demand of dowry and they used to abuse and assault the

informant and their willful conduct was of such a nature as is likely to

cause grave injury and danger to life, limb and health of the informant

both mentally and physically and the petitioners were demanding dowry

as well and after finding such allegations to be true upon collection of

evidence including the statement of the witnesses and other materials,

charge sheet has been submitted and on the basis of the same, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences

and this case is at nascent stage where the charge is yet to be framed.

8. So far as the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Preeti Gupta & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others

(supra), the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite

( 2026:JHHC:2761 )

party No.2 submits that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has also taken note of the rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of

dowry harassment and observed that the same is a matter of serious

concern. It is next submitted that since, in this case, police after

investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioners to be

true and it is not even the case of the petitioners that police has conducted

any partition investigation or there is any error in the investigation

committed by the police and the only contention of the petitioners is that

the allegations against them are false; the same again at the most be the

defence of the petitioners which can be considered only at the full dress

trial of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without

any merit, be dismissed.

9. 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 undisputed facts remains that the

police during the investigation of the case found each of the allegations in

respect of each of the offences, in respect of which charge sheet has been

submitted and cognizance of each of the offences has been taken by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad basing upon the charge sheet

is made out. There is no allegation that any error was committed by the

police in the investigation of the case or there was any shortcoming in the

investigation of the case. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of

taking cognizance and issue of process, the Magistrate is not required to

consider the defence version or materials or arguments in the defence of

( 2026:JHHC:2761 )

the accused persons nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the

materials or evidence of the prosecution.

10. In view of the undisputed fact that the police during the

investigation of the case found allegations against each of the petitioners

to be true in respect of the offences for which charge sheet has been

submitted against them, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the

facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Kahkashan Kausar

@ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), moreover,

because unlike that case, there is no second FIR involved in this case.

11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the

considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for

by the petitioners is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C., at this nascent stage.

12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02nd of February, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 06/02/2026