Charges cannot proceed without substantiation of essential elements; mere allegations are insufficient to maintain criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

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 proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 424, 109, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the Criminal Revision No.62 of 2024 which was filed against the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed by the learned trial court and the case is next fixed to 30.01.2026 for evidence before charge.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are respectively Nanad the mother and (Sister of the husband) of the opposite party No.2/complainant. The allegation against the husband of the complainant namely Mainak Roy is that he has sold the property in violation of the protection order passed against him in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad and purchased a flat in the name of the petitioner No.2. Though there is allegation that after the reception ceremony of the marriage of the complainant/opposite party No.2, the petitioners have Streedhan kept her which was given by the parents of the opposite party No.2 to her and that even after being asked they are not returning the same but the same was also the subject matter of C.P. Case No.624 of 2010 in which the petitioners were also the accused persons.

5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the inquiry evidence, the learned Magistrate inter alia found sufficient grounds to issue summons against the petitioners also for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 424, 109, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, the same provides for penalty for breach of protection order passed against the person concerned and drawing attention of the Court to page-44 of the brief which is paragraph-29 of the Final Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order has been passed only in respect of the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and not against these petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against either of the petitioners, of deceiving the complainant o