[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Sudha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                            (2026:JHHC:371)




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No.1869 of 2020
                                 ------

1. Sudha Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Pradeep Kumar Singh

2. Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Kr. Singh @ Pardeep Kr. Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Sri Govind Singh.

3. Rohit Kumar Singh @ Rohit Kr. Singh, aged about 31 years son of Pradeep Kumar Singh

4. Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Kr. Singh aged about 25 years, son of Pradeep Kumar Singh All residents of village Kumahari, P.O. Narchachi, P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, presently residing at Ghatotand west Bokaro, Mukunda beda+ H-9, P.O. + P.S. Mandu O.P. Ghatotand, District Ramgarh

5. Krishna Kumar Singh @ Krishan Kumar Singh @ Krishna Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Bakcho, P.O. Loram, P.S. Itkhori, Bakcho, District Chatra ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Priyanka Devi wife of Rohit Kumar Singh, resident of Kumhari, P.O. + P.S. Mayurhand, District Chatra, presently residing at village Barka Kalan P.O. + P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag, currently residing at 09 Mukundabeda H Block, Quarter N0. 9, West Bokaro, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. Mandu O.P., District Ramgarh ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None

------

                          PRESENT
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



                                                                             (2026:JHHC:371)




By the Court:-     Heard the parties.

2. Though the opposite party No.2 has put in her appearance

through a lawyer but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party

No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

including the First Information Report in connection with Mandu (West

Bokaro O.P.) P.S. Case No.145 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of

the court of A.C.J.M., Ramgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation

of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted

in this case.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being

the husband and relatives of the husband of the informant, treated the

informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and also

demanded dowry.

6. Drawing attention of this Court towards the copy of the certified

copy of the complaint filed by the informant against the petitioner

Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

informant has filed Complaint Case No.613 of 2019 for the self-same

allegation which has been made in the present F.I.R. and drawing

attention of this Court towards the order dated 10.06.2020 passed in

(2026:JHHC:371)

Cr.M.P. No.975 of 2020, learned counsel for the petitioners further

submits that since a co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the further

proceedings in connection with the said case, hence, suppressing the

material fact that for the self-same allegation, a complaint has already

been instituted; without clean hands, this case has been instituted. It is

then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is

further submitted that the informant has suppressed the filing of earlier

case. Therefore, it is submitted that since the informant has not

approached the court with clean hands, hence, the conduct of the

informant amounts to abuse of process of law. It is also submitted that

even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are

considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offence is made

out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the

petitioners, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand

vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant

Cr.M.P. and submits that the allegations made are sufficient to

constitute each of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been

registered. Hence, at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings

ought not be quashed. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being

without any merit, be dismissed.

8. 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 this Court in the case of Ajay Sagar @

(2026:JHHC:371)

Ajay Prem Sagar & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another

passed in Cr.M.P. No.3781 of 2022 dated 28th June, 2023, relied upon the

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

Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in

(2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraphs-13 and 26 of which read as under:-

"13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge-

sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481] ).

26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends." (Emphasis supplied)

wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

that it is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure

of facts. It is a matter of trite law and yet bears repetition that

(2026:JHHC:371)

suppression of material facts before a court amount to the abuse of the

process of the court and shall be dealt with a heavy hand.

9. In that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Agarwal & Others

vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524, para-20 and

21 of which reads as under:-

"20. Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants.

21. We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in the Section 156(3) CrPC application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 CrPC and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice."

Wherein as the impugned F.I.R was nothing but an abuse of

process of law and to harass the accused the same was instituted, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that the High Court

ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India/Section 482 CrPC and ought to have quashed the

impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice.

10. Now, coming to the facts of this case; the undisputed fact remains

that much prior to lodging of this F.I.R. on 03.08.2020 for the self-same

allegation made against the petitioners, the informant filed Complaint

Case No.613 of 2019 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

(2026:JHHC:371)

Hazaribagh and the said case is still pending but suppressing this