Mohit Kumar Mandal @ Mohit Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1962 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mohit Kumar Mandal @ Mohit Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                 (2026:JHHC:7053)



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 648 of 2026


           Mohit Kumar Mandal @ Mohit Mandal, aged about 18 years, s/o
           Rameshwar Mandal, r/o Jagadih, P.O. & P.S.-Baskupi, Dist.-Deoghar,
           State-Jharkhand
                                                ....               Petitioner
                                          Versus
           The State of Jharkhand
                                                ....                Opp. Party

                                      PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. .....

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., 2023 with

the prayer to quash the FIR along with the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Gandey P.S. Case no. 03 of 2026

registered for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S.

and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, pending in the court of Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not

yet been submitted.

(2026:JHHC:7053)

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner after

solemnizing marriage with the informant consequent upon the

development of love between the petitioner and the informant;

took the informant to his house situated at Ruxkuti but two

months prior to lodging of the FIR left for his own house at

Jagadih, deserting the informant in the said house at Ruxkuti and

did not return to her. When the informant contacted over phone,

the family members of the petitioner threatened her and made a

dowry demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, motorcycle, bed etc. It is claimed

that the petitioner is aged 22 years and is bent upon not keeping

the informant with him, in his house and eager to solemnize

marriage with another lady.

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

police registered Gandey P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 and took up

investigation of the case.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has not solemnized marriage with the informant and

the age of the petitioner is 18 years. It is next submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific

allegation against the petitioner so the offence punishable under

Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not made out; nor is

there any allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner,

rather the same is against the family members of the petitioner.

Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind

Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in

(2026:JHHC:7053)

2025:JHHC:32784, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that in the facts of that case, when the demand of dowry

was made by the Sasuralwale (members of the in-law's family), of the

informant of that case, this Court quashed the entire criminal

proceeding of that case against the petitioner. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous

petition be allowed.

7. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the

prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation

against the petitioner of harassing the informant by deserting her

in a place namely Ruxkuti to fend for herself with a view to coerce

her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-,

motorcycle, bed etc. made by the family members of the petitioner

and the willful conduct of the petitioner to be eager to marry

another lady while his marriage with the informant is subsisting is

a conduct of such an nature which is likely to cause danger to the

mental health of the informant. It is then submitted by learned

Addl. P.P. that the contention of the petitioner that he is aged 18

years or that he has not solemnized marriage with the informant

is the defence of the petitioner which he can take during the

investigation of the case as well as if required, upon the

submission of charge sheet, before the trial court but certainly, the

same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding at

this nescent stage. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that

since there is a categorical averment in the FIR that the petitioner

(2026:JHHC:7053)

is aged 22 years and that he has solemnized marriage with the

informant, the same is to be treated to be true at this stage and

once the same is treated to be true, certainly the offence

punishable under 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out

against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this criminal

miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

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

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent

to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against

the petitioner of harassing the informant by deserting her and

forcing her to fend for herself at the place namely Ruxkuti and

becoming eager to marry another lady, while his marriage with

the informant is subsisting, that too with the view to coerce the

informant to meet the unlawful demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-

, motorcycle, bed etc.. Certainly, the wilful conduct of the

petitioner of being eager to marry another lady by deserting his

own wife when his marriage with his wife-informant is subsisting,

is a conduct of such nature which is likely to cause grave injury to

the mental health of the informant.

9. Under such circumstances, if the contents of the FIR are

considered to be true then prima facie the offence punishable under

Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the

petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the

petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise

(2026:JHHC:7053)

of the power under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without

any merit is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th March, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/-

Uploaded on 17/03/2026