Jharkhand High Court
Jaydev Kumar @ Jaydeo Sao @ Jaydeo Saw … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:19477)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.4767 of 2022
------
1. Jaydev Kumar @ Jaydeo Sao @ Jaydeo Saw aged about 29 Year son
of Late Mahabir Prasad Saw resident of house no.127 Jodhadih more,
Chandankiyari road, Chas P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro
2. Sunita Gorain @ Sunita Gorai @ Soni Gorai aged about 36 Year
wife of Kedar Gorain @ Kedar Gorai.
3. Kedar Gorain @ Kedar Gorai aged about 40 Year son of Kartik
Chandra Garain
Both above serial no. 2 and 3 are resident of village Chitmu,
P.O. & P.S. & District Purulia, West Bengal
4. Sujata Gorain @ Sujata Gorai, aged about 44 Year wife of Chandan
Gorain, resident of ward no.4, Bhatbandh, Purulia I, P.O. & P.S. &
District Purulia, West Bengal
5. Moni Devi @ Moni Saw @ Maniya Devi, aged about 37 Year wife
of Mukesh Kumar Sahu @ Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Saw.
6. Mukesh Kumar Sahu @ Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Saw aged about 39
Year son of Banarasi Sahu
Both above serial no.5 and 6 are resident of ghujadih, Dumri
Panchayat, P.O. & P.S. Dumri, District Giridih
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kumari Puja Saha wife of Deonath Saw daughter of Dinesh Kumar
Saha presently residing at her father house at village G.T. Road Ishri
Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Nimiyaghat, District- Giridih Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
1 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022
(2025:JHHC:19477)
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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in
connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 and the order taking
cognizance dated 10.08.2022, by which consequent upon submission of the
charge-sheet against the petitioners, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 498A, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the
relatives of the husband of the informant, treated her with cruelty by harassing
her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- by making false
allegation that the informant is a Daain (witch) and on that pretext, assaulted
her on several occasions, for the reason of non-fulfilling the demand of dowry.
The petitioners also forcibly took away jewelleries as well as valuable gifts,
given to the informant, by her family members. The petitioners forcibly made
her abort the foetus within two months of her pregnancy and the harassment
and cruelty continued for fourteen (14) months. By regular assault, denying
food and making the informant starve, the health condition of the informant
deteriorated. But even then she was not treated by any doctor. Ultimately, the
informant was forced to go to her maternal house with her brother but after the
informant was cured of the disease, she went to her matrimonial house with
her father but the petitioners again assaulted her and called her Daain (witch)
2 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022
(2025:JHHC:19477)
and drove her out from her matrimonial house for non-fulfilment of the dowry
demand and on the pretext of assault, the petitioner Nos.1 and 6 outraged the
modesty of the informant as well, while the petitioner No.2 called the
informant a Daain (witch) and snatched away her Mangalsutra (necklace). On
the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police took up
investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after perusal of the
case record, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has found prima
facie case for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 498A, 354, 379, 34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and took
up cognizance of the said offences inter alia against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against
the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that this case was lodged only after
institution of Original Suit No.578 of 2021 for dissolution of the marriage.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be
allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits
that the petitioners basically seek quashing of the entire criminal proceedings
on two grounds, first is that the allegation against them is false and second is
that this case was instituted after a petition for dissolution of the marriage was
filed by the husband of the informant, who is not a petitioner herein. It is next
submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against
3 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022
(2025:JHHC:19477)
the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still all the offences in
respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has taken
cognizance, consequent upon submission of the charge-sheet, is made out
against the petitioners. It is further submitted that this Court, in exercise of the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot evaluate the veracity of the
defence of the petitioners or the contention of the accused persons that they are
innocent as that is the job of the trial court and for which evidence is required
to be taken, which is not before this Court at present. Hence, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. 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 the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be
considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High
Court as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh
Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. It is also a settled
principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the genuine
prosecution cannot be stifled with, as has been held in the case of Monica
Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 781.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 reiterated
the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court
in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which
reads as under :-
4 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022
(2025:JHHC:19477)
” Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court
has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not
permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of
decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the
stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case
being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and
treating the informant with cruelty by harassing her and the harassment was
with the view to coerce the informant and her parents to meet the unlawful
demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the
entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their
entirety, the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioners.
9. In view of the direct allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the
informant on several occasions after catching hold of her, the offence
punishable under Section 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also made
out against the petitioners.
10. There is specific allegation against the petitioner Nos.1 and 6 of
outraging the modesty of the informant. So, the offence punishable under
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out.
11. There is allegation against the petitioners of taking the jewelleries and
other valuable gifts from the possession of the informant given to her without
the consent of the informant and for the same the offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioners
5 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022
(2025:JHHC:19477)
and there is further allegation against the petitioners that all these offences
were committed by the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with
each other with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the accused
persons can be held responsible for the offences committed in furtherance of
common intention with each other. The allegation of demand of dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/- is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. In view of the discussions made above as the learned Magistrate after
taking into consideration the materials available in the record, has found prima
facie case for the offences as already indicated above, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash and set aside the
entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Nimiyaghat
P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 and the order taking cognizance dated 10.08.2022.
13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of July, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
6 Cr. M.P. No.4767 of 2022