[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ashish Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:7671)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No.1712 of 2024
------
1. Ashish Oraon, aged about 42 years, S/o Kamlesh Oraon
2. Ashok Oraon, aged about 39 years, S/o Kamlesh Oraon
3. Kamlesh Oraon, aged about 68 years, S/o Late Garmu Oraon
All R/o of Village- Aanjan, PO and PS- Gumla, District- Gumla.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jayshree Kumari, aged about 36 years, W/o Vijay Oraon and
D/o Janak Bhagat, R/o Village- Pachagai, PO- Nagjuwa, PS-
Kairo and District- Lohardaga. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate
M/s Jyoti Nayan
Vishal Kr. Binay, Advocates
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, S. P.P.
------
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, 1973, with the prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.02.2024
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with Kairo
P.S. Case No.12/ 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.110/ 2024 (Vide
C.S. No.32/ 2023) registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A/ 34 IPC
whereby and whereunder learned SDJM, Lohardaga, has taken
cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A / 34 IPC as
well as under Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, inter-alia,
(2026:JHHC:7671)
against the petitioners; basing upon the charge-sheet submitted by the
Police against them.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners
being the relatives of the husband of the informant made a dowry
demand of Rs.7 Lakhs and treated her with cruelty by harassing and
by beating her with sticks and drove her out from her matrimonial
home with a view to coerce her to fulfil their unlawful dowry demand
of Rs.7 Lakhs. There is specific allegation of assault against the
petitioners on 27.06.2021. There is also specific allegation of
demanding Rs.7 Lakhs not only from the informant, but also from the
father of the informant after the informant was driven out from her
matrimonial house to meet the unlawful demand; on separate
occasions. Further there is allegation against the petitioners of
assaulting and beating the informant in her matrimonial house also
upon expression of inability of her father to meet the unlawful dowry
demand of Rs.7 Lakhs.
4. The informant filed Complaint Case No.52 of 2022 in the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, and the same was referred to
the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. and the Police registered
Kairo P.S. Case No.12/ 2022 and took investigation of the case. Police
after investigation found the allegations made in the First Information
Report to be true and submitted charge-sheet, inter-alia, against the
petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 498A/ 34 IPC and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Basing
upon the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offences, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of
this judgement.
(2026:JHHC:7671)
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegation against the petitioners is false. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are
brother-in-law of the informant, whereas, petitioner no.3 is father-in-
law of the informant.
6. It is next submitted that even if the allegations as made in the
FIR are considered to be true, no offence in respect of which the
charge-sheet has been submitted, is made out. Hence, it is submitted
that the prayer made in the instant Cr. M. P. may be allowed.
7. Learned SPP for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of harassing the informant by
beating her repeatedly and driving her away from her matrimonial
house, with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful dowry
demand of Rs.7 Lakhs. Further, there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioners for making dowry demand not only from the
informant, but also from the father of the informant after coming to
the house of the father of the informant; as after the informant was
driven out from her matrimonial house, she was forced to live in the
house of her father.
8. It is next submitted that the willful conduct of the petitioners
was of such a nature which is likely to cause grave injury and danger
to life both mental and physical of the informant. It is also submitted
that Police found the allegations to be true. It is lastly submitted that
the instant Cr. M. P. being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after
going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention that
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of
(2026:JHHC:7671)
demanding dowry of Rs.7 Lakhs both from the informant and her
father on separate occasions and separate places. There is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioners of beating the informant
with sticks with a view to coerce to meet the unlawful dowry demand
of ₹ 7 lakhs.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the allegations made
in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, then each of the
offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioners in fact is made out against the petitioners. The allegations
made in the FIR was found to be true during the investigation of the
case by the Police and the Police has also submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioners for having committed the said offences.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no justifiable reason for this Court to accede to
the prayer of the petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.
12. Accordingly, the instant Cr. M. P. being devoid of merits stands
dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th March, 2026
AFR/ Sandeep
Uploaded on- 23/03/2026
