[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Madan Aged About 48 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1530 of 2024
------
1. Manoj Kumar Madan aged about 48 years, S/o Sri Naresh
Thakur, resident of Champa Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Nathnagar,
District-Bhagalpur.
2. Anita Kumari aged about 39 years, W/o Manoj Kumar Madan,
resident of Champa Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Nathnagar, District-
Bhagalpur.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Savita Devi, D/o Ashok Thakur, aged about 37 years, resident of
Mirzacheuki, P.O. & P.S.-Mirzacheuki, District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Savita Kumari, 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 and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed in
the Complaint Case No.500 of 2022 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sahibganj by which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
Magistrate, Sahibganj has found sufficient material available in the record
to proceed inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 498A, 494, 420, 504, 506/34 &
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is
the husband and petitioner no.2 is the own sister of the
informant/opposite party no.2 and the allegation against the petitioner
no.1 is that during the subsistence of his marriage with the informant, he
married with the petitioner no.2 and treated the informant/opposite party
no.2 with cruelty and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been driven
out from her matrimonial house and when she was driven out from her
matrimonial house but her jewelleries, clothes and other valuables are still
in her matrimonial house.
4. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant/opposite
party no.2, police registered Mirzacheuki P.S. Case No.13 of 2021 and took
up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police
submitted Final Report and did not send up the accused person of the
case for trial because of lack of evidence.
5. The complainant filed a protest-cum-complaint case which was
registered as P.C.R. Case No.500 of 2022 and in the said case basing upon
the protest-cum-complaint petition, statement on solemn affirmation of
the complainant-informant and the statement of three enquiry witnesses,
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has found
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners; as already indicated
above.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court
to the unimpeachable documents i.e. the certified copy of the judgment
passed by the Family Court, Bhagalpur in Matrimonial Case No.269 of
2018 dated 17.08.2019, submits that the Hindu Marriage between the
petitioner no.1 and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been dissolved
by the decree of divorce vide the said judgment dated 17.08.2019 and on
and from 17.08.2019, the informant/opposite party no.2 has ceased to be
the wife of the petitioner no.1.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next drawing attention of this
Court to Annexure-8 of the brief, which is the web copy of the order of
Hon'ble Patna High Court, submits that though the informant/opposite
party no.2 filed Misc. Apppeal No.15 of 2021 in the High Court of
Judicature at Patna, but vide order dated 17.11.2022, the complainant has
withdrawn the said misc. appeal as the issues between the parties have
already been settled, accordingly, the said Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2021 is
dismiss as withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further drawing attention of this
Court to Annexure-9, which is the copy of the certificate issued by the
Marriage Officer, Bhagalpur, submits that the petitioner no.1 married the
petitioner no.2 on 25.07.2020 and the same has been registered under the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18.08.2021.
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that there is no
allegation anywhere against the petitioner no.1 of having committed any
act or omission prior to 17.08.2019 and since 17.08.2019, the petitioner no.1
ceased to be the husband of the informant/opposite party no.2, hence,
neither the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code nor the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that there is no
allegation against the petitioners of removing any movable property out
of the possession of informant/opposite party no.2 with any dishonest
intention, hence, the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code is also not made out against them.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that there is no
allegation against the petitioners of deceiving the informant/opposite
party no.2 or inducing her in any manner to part with any property etc.
and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that there is no
allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anyone, hence, the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out and in the absence of any allegation of intentionally insulting or
committing criminal intimidation against the petitioners, the offences
punishable under Section 504 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made
out. It is next submitted that as none of the offences is made out against
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
13. 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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the decree of divorce passed by
the Family Court, Bhagalpur on 17.08.2019, but he submits that if the
informant/opposite party no.2 has challenged that decree in the Hon'ble
Patna High Court, then without the instruction of the informant/opposite
party no.2, the same has been withdrawn. It is lastly submitted that all the
offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sahibganj has found sufficient material to proceed against the
petitioners is made out against the petitioners on the basis of the materials
available in the record against them, therefore, this Cr.M.P., being without
any merit, be dismissed.
14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, the
undisputed facts remains that the marriage between the petitioner no.1
and the informant/opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by the decree
of divorce by the competent court being the Family Court, Bhagalpur on
17.08.2019, so this Court has no hesitation in holding that in view of the
unimpeachable documents being the judgment of the said case as well as
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
the admission made by the parties, the petitioner no.1 ceased to be the
husband of the informant/opposite party no.2; on and from 17.08.2019.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the petitioner no.1 of having committed any wrong with the
informant/opposite party no.2 before 17.08.2019, the marriage of
petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no.1 undisputedly took place after
17.08.2019.
16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
in view of the dissolution of the marriage between the
informant/opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.1 on and from
17.08.2019 and in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner no.1
of having committed any commission or omission, on any day prior to
17.08.2019, neither the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 494 of the
Indian Penal Code is made out.
17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said
offence are as under:-
(1). The accused removed the movable property;
(2) He removed it out of the possession of another person
without his consent;
(3) He did so with a dishonest intention.
as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of K.N. Mehra vs. State reported in AIR 1957 SC 369.
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
18. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the
claimant that she was driven out from her matrimonial house after the
undisputed dissolution of the marriage between the informant/opposite
party no.2 and the petitioner no.1. It is crystal clear that on and from
17.08.2019, the house of the petitioner no.1 ceased to be the matrimonial
house of the informant/opposite party no.2, so if prior to that some
movable property was kept by the informant/opposite party no.2 in the
house of the petitioner no.1, the same will not amount to removal of
movable property from the possession of the informant/opposite party
no.2 by the petitioners with any dishonest intention and in the absence of
the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their
entirety still the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal
Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian
Penal Code.
19. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against
the petitioners of intentionally insulting the informant/opposite party
no.2 or committing criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same,
this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations
made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still
the offences punishable under Sections 504 or 506 of Indian Penal Code
are not made out.
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:-
(A). Deceit, i.e. to say dishonest or fraudulent
misrepresentation and
(B) inducing the person deceived to part with property.
as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.
21. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody nor there is any
allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person deceived, to part
with any property and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence
punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
22. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said
offences are as under:-
(A). Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, deceased or
infirmity to the victim;
(B). The accused did so with intention of causing hurt or
with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the
victim.
23. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of causing bodily pain, deceased or
infirmity to any victim and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the
( 2026:JHHC:853 )
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence
punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is not made out even
with the aid of Section 34 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
24. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj
has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners is made
out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view
that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners
will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated
18.08.2023 passed in the Complaint Case No.500 of 2022 by learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, be quashed and set aside.
25. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed in the Complaint Case No.500
of 2022 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
26. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 13th of January, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 16/01/2026
