IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2075 of 2022 ------

Binay Harodia @ Vinay Harodia, aged about 39 yrs. S/o Deo Prasad Agarwal, House No. 169B, Katras Road, In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Matkuria, P.O. & P.S. Matkuria, Dist.

Dhanbad.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Khushbu Havodia, D/o Binod Dalniya, R/o In front of Syndicate Bank, Matkuria, Bankmore, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Addl.P.P.

For the OP No.2 : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate Ms. Shabana Perween, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code differing from Final Form submitted by the police against the petitioner on the basis of the materials available in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary, which are the statements of the different witnesses stated before the Investigating Officer of the case.

3. It is submitted at the Bar that the case is next fixed on

19.11.2025 for consideration of framing of charge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harshad Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated 12.07.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No.284 of 2017, submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the court is not supposed to act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or to act as a post-office by accepting the findings of police report but if the court disagrees or differs with the closure report; then, it is required to assign cogent reasons for not accepting or disagreeing with the findings of the police. It is next submitted that several witnesses have stated before the Investigating Officer of the case, including the son of the informant/opposite party No.2 and the petitioner that they have not seen any incriminating conduct of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the informant/opposite party No.2, by a decree of divorce but the same has since been dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the dismissal order of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce of the petitioner, before this Court and the same is sub judice. It is further submitted that the informant/opposite party No.2 has given in writing acknowledging her mistake of saying that she will commit suicide and has undertaken not to repeat the same. Hence, it is submitted that under such circumstances, the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the witnesses whose statement appears in para-2, 6, 7 and 8 namely Khushboo Harodia, Binod Dalmia, Rajshekhar Dalmia and Manju Devi respectively have categorically stated about the petitioner that he is harassing the informant/opposite party No.2 by coercing her to meet his unlawful demand of more money, to be brought by the informant from his brother and indulged in heinous acts by falsely alleging and going to the extent of attributing the illicit relationship of the informant with other males. It is next submitted that t