Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Kant Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:15534]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2934 of 2023
------
1. Kamal Kant Mandal, aged about 63 years, S/o Sisir Kumar
Mandal
2. Sangita Mandal, aged about 50 years, W/o Kamal Kant
Mandal
3. Souranil Mandal @ Sournil Mandal, aged about 28 years, S/o
Kamal Kant Mandal
Petitioner Nos. 1-3 all resident of Village- Menka Bhawan,
Mohulbera, P.O.- Musabani, P.S.- Musabani, East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand- 832104
4. Sreyoshi Mandal @ Shreyoshi Mandal, aged about 32 years,
W/o Sabit Mal
5. Sabit Mal, aged about 37 years, S/o Kalyanmay Mal,
Petitioner Nos. 4-5 are resident of Flat No. 1006, Vista Tower-8,
Uniworld City, Karigori Bhawan, action Area- III, Kolkata,
North 24 Pargana, P.O. + P.S.- New Town, Distt- North 24
Pargana, West Bengal- 700156
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rubayana Patra W/o Saubhonik Mandal D/o Anadi Patra
R/o- Qr. No. CC-15, Chaupia Colony, Sidhgora, P.O & P.S-
Sidhgora, Distt- Singhbhum East.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
——
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
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 the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising
out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No.190 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1070 of
2023 and the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 498A, 354, 420 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law of
the informant/opposite party No.2, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law,
petitioner No.3 is the devar (brother-in-law) and the petitioner No.4 is nanad
i.e. sister-in-law and the petitioner No.5 is the nandosi i.e. the husband of the
petitioner No.4 of the informant. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the
petitioners demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of the
informant which was given by the parents of the informant. There is also
allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners with intention to deceive
the informant and her parents stated that the husband of the informant namely
Saubhonik Mandal will marry and lead a happy conjugal life with the
informant and suppressed the material fact that Saubhonik Mandal is in
relationship with a lady namely Vaishali Mukherjee and thus alluring the
informant and her parents of a happy conjugal life for the informant;
fraudulently and dishonestly induced the parents of the informant to pay
Rs.20,00,000/- and thereby cheated the informant and her parents. The
marriage of the informant and her husband Saubhonik Mandal was solemnized
2 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
under the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioner No.4 invited
the informant to her house at Kolkata for preparing pre-wedding video/ pre-
social wedding video shoot and after the photo shoot, the husband of the
informant left for London. The petitioner No.5 outraged the modesty of the
informant by catching hold of her hand inappropriately with an evil intention,
after trespassing to the room of the informant. There is also allegation against
the petitioners of indulging in willful conduct of such a nature which is likely
to cause injury and danger to the life and health of the informant. On the basis
of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Sidhgora
P.S. Case No.190 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case and after
completion of investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners
to be true and also found that the petitioners have committed the offence
punishable under Section 498A, 354, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and on the basis of the same, the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the
said offences vide order dated 24.06.2023 in connection with the said Sidhgora
P.S. Case No.190 of 2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamal & Others vs. State of
Gujarat & Another reported in 2025 INSC 504 and submits that therein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in the matters arising from
matrimonial disputes, particularly where the allegations are leveled after many
years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates divorce proceeding
against the other, the Court must be circumspect in taking the allegations at
their face value and it must examine, where allegations of mala fides are there,
whether those allegations have been leveled with an oblique purpose.
3 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Subba Rao & Others vs. State
of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home & Others
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 and submits that therein in para-6, it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the courts should be
careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry death. The relatives of the husband should
not be roped in on the basis of the omnibus allegations unless specific instances
of their involvement in the crime are made out.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next 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 (2022) 6 SCC 599 and submits
that in that judgment in para-17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken
note of the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial
on the complainant as well as the accused and also raised concern with false
implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process
of law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has warned the courts from
proceeding against any relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners
have falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the informant
was in relationship with someone and knowing the same, husband of the
informant filed Original Suit No.776 of 2022 in Family Court, Jamshedpur
declaring marriage between him and the informant a nullity and after receipt of
4 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
the said notice by the informant, this FIR has been instituted. It is next
submitted that Rs.20,00,000/- taken by the petitioners was never for dowry
rather it was for the expenses related to marriage but the money was not taken
by the family of the bridegroom. It is next submitted that the order taking
cognizance dated 24.06.2023 is a cryptic order. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
informant-opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and
submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of
having committed various offences. It is next submitted that it is also found to
be true during the investigation of the case and then only the charge-sheet has
been submitted. It is also submitted that taking of Rs.20,00,000/- directly or
indirectly from the parents of the informant in connection with the marriage of
the informant with her husband amounts to dowry and therefore, both the
offences punishable under Section 3 as well as Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out in this case. It is then submitted that there is
direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cheating thereby
dishonestly inducing the parents of the informant to pay Rs.20,00,000/- and the
amount has been paid by the parents of the informant and after pocketing the
said amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, the petitioners want to wash their hands of the
matter by resorting to character assassination of the informant; which itself is
an act of cruelty and there is direct and specific allegation in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition itself by the petitioners in no uncertain terms by making
false allegation against the informant that she was in relationship with a boy;
which is out and out false. It is then submitted that thus, the offence
5 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is also made out
against the petitioners. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner No.5 with the aid and in furtherance of
common intention with other co-accused persons; who are the petitioners in
this case, of laying trap wherein the petitioner No.5 got the opportunity to
outrage the modesty of the informant by catching hold of her inappropriately
with an evil intention, so, the offence punishable under Section 354 of the
Indian Penal Code is also made out.
9. Learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant next submit
that since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence based
upon the police report, the Magistrate was not required to record any reason
pertaining to the cognizance, in detail. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
10. 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 it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing summons to
accused based on a police report, the Magistrate is not required to record any
reason as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20
SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:
“23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is
concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet,
statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police
during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the
necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in
compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and
in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and
materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating
officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases,6 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the
charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report
along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under
Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance
of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs
issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based
upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record
reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report,
the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to
the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is
based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the
police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case
based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to
the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In
case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of
jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file,
then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of
the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied)
11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of being in furtherance of common intention
with the co-accused persons, taking Rs.20,00,000/- in connection with the
marriage of the informant with her husband. So, this Court is of the considered
view that if, the allegations made against the petitioners remain unrebutted,
certainly, the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act will be made out; as said Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by the parents of the
informant upon being demanded by the petitioners.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, the allegation is that the husband of the informant and also
the petitioners who are the relatives of the husband of the informant
suppressed the material fact that the husband of the informant was having
relation with one lady and after taking Rs.20,00,000/-, the same was disclosed
by the husband of the informant to the informant. Though there is specific
name of the lady in the FIR with whom the husband of the informant was in
7 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
relationship with, but not a word has been whispered in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition as to who was that lady and what was her relationship
with the husband of the informant; rather the petitioners have resorted to
character assassination of the informant in most humiliating manner by making
vague allegations of her having a relationship with some male person, without
disclosing the name of the person. This itself is an act of cruelty.
13. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code is made out if the allegations remain unrebutted.
14. In view of the discussion made above, since there is direct and specific
allegations against the petitioners of being in furtherance of common intention
with the petitioner No.5 having outraged the modesty of the informant, the
offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out
and as the allegations is that the petitioners have cheated and thereby
dishonestly induced the parents of the informant to part with Rs.20,00,000/- by
fraudulent deception of the father of the informant, hence, the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out.
15. True it is that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners as referred to
above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has warned the courts to be careful
while proceeding against the relatives of the husband of any victim in
connection with the offence arising out of matrimonial dispute but this is a case
where there is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioners; as already
indicated above.
16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this
is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising
out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No.190 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1070 of
2023 and the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned
8 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023
[2025:JHHC:15534]
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with the said case be
quashed and set aside at this nascent stage.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any
merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th of June, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
9 Cr. M.P. No.2934 of 2023