SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Mamta Devi, wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh, daughter of Dilip Kumar Singh - Petitioner 
Versus 
The State of Jharkhand – Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No.2573 of 2024
Decided On : 19-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.S Dayal, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P., Ms. Nirupama, Adv., Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv.

In complaint cases, discharge under Section 245 CrPC required if pre-charge evidence under Section 244, even unrebutted, lacks specific allegations warranting accused's conviction.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 244, 245 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 498A - Warrant case instituted on complaint - Discharge - Magistrate must take evidence under Section 244 CrPC in support of prosecution - If, upon such evidence, even if unrebutted, no case made out warranting conviction of accused, Magistrate shall discharge under Section 245(1) CrPC for reasons to be recorded - No specific allegation against accused in pre-charge evidence of complainant regarding demand of money or assault - Accused separated from complainant since incident date - Revision allowing discharge upheld, petition to quash order dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

(B) Criminal revision - Scope - Revisional court may correct error in rejecting discharge where evidence discloses no offence against accused. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
Complainant filed case alleging offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC against husband and relatives. Prima facie case found initially. Accused filed discharge petition under Section 245 CrPC (erroneously cited as 239), rejected by Magistrate. Revision allowed by Sessions Judge holding insufficient material against accused due to lack of specific allegations in evidence under Section 244 CrPC, marriage dissolved by divorce with alimony paid, parties separated. Petitioner sought to quash revision order.

Findings of Court:
No direct or specific allegation implicating accused in evidence under Section 244 CrPC; complainant stated demand of money and assault but not attributing to accused; sent to ancestral village alone, separated since then.

Issues: Whether Sessions Judge erred in allowing discharge under Section 245 CrPC in revision; sufficiency of pre-charge evidence to frame charge.

Ratio Decidendi: Discharge mandatory if prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC, even unrebutted, fails to disclose offence warranting conviction due to absence of specific imputation against accused; divorce and separation further support no case.

Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history of complaint, discharge petition, and revision allowing discharge under crpc 245 (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions on evidence sufficiency for framing charges under 498a/323 ipc (Para 5 , 6)
3. discharge warranted under crpc 245 if prosecution evidence lacks specific allegations against accused (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. no interference with revisional discharge order under bnss 528 (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.133 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro has allowed the criminal revision and allowed the petition filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharging from the case and acquitted the opposite party and discharged the opposite party no.2 in Complaint Case No.96 of 2019.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.96 of 2019 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the learned Judicial Magistrate to which Court the case was transferred, on the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A & 323 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the opposite party no.2 who is the husband of the petitioner as well as Dev Nandan Singh, Geeta Devi and Loknath Singh @ Banerjee Singh. The opposite party no.2 filed a petition under Section 239 of CrPC in the Court of SDJM, Bokaro to which Court, the case was subsequently transferred, contending therein that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the petitioner has been paid Rs.6 lakhs as one time permanent alimony by the opposite party no.2. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of divorce passed in O.S. Case No.486 of 2018 dated 23.11.2022 by the Family Court, Bokaro has been dismissed by the High Court. The two children of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are residing with the family members of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 and his son have made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro for unwanted intervention in the studies of his son and the matter was forwarded to Child Welfare Committee, Bokaro and the custody of the son of the opposite party no.2 has been handed over to the father of the opposite party no.2. The learned SDJM, Bokaro considered that the contention raised by the petitioner is subject matter of trial and rejected the petition under of CrPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No.133 of 2023 which was heard and allowed vide order dated 26.06.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro considered that the undisputed facts remains that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by the decree of divorce and the appeal filed against the same has been dismissed by the High Court. There was no material placed before the Revisional Court to suggest that the dismissal order of the appeal passed by the High Court was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The learned Revisional Court considered the evidence before charge in the Court in which the complainant has not stated anything against the opposite party no.2 of having committing any act or omission to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top