##PAGE1##

(2025:JHHC:38374)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.1320 of 2019

------

1. Upendra Kumar Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Ram Ballav

Singh

2. Shanti Devi @ Gayanti Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Upendra

Singh

3. Sweta Kumar, aged about 28 years, W/o Atul Kumar

4. Vinita Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/o Sanjay Singh

5. Aditya Singh aged about 29 years, son of Upendra Kumar Singh.

All resident of Village: Chittornagar, Nea Area, Aurgangabad,

P.O. and P.S: and Dist: Aurangabad, Bihar.

… Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ranjana Singh, D/o Kailash Singh, resident of S. P. Kothi Road,

Abadganj, P.O. & P.S: Daltonganj, Dist: Daltonganj

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

of Mahila (Palamau) P.S. Case No.40 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.

No.1951 of 2017 including the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and

1

Cr. M.P. No.1320 of 2019

(2025:JHHC:38374)

where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at

Daltonganj has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the charge-sheet

submitted by the police.

3. The petitioners, for the reasons best known them, have not filed

the copy of the charge-sheet basing upon which the said cognizance

order has been passed.

4. On being asked by the Court as to how many witnesses have

been examined during the trial of the case, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners have no idea as to how may

witnesses have been examined during the trial.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1

being the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 being the mother-in-law,

petitioner Nos.3 and 4 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) and petitioner

No.5 being the brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant, treated the

informant with cruelty by harassing her; by taunting her that the

articles given to her at the time of her marriage were of poor quality

and for the purpose of coercing the informant to bring a car or in lieu

thereof, Rs.8,00,000/- in cash from her father, as a manner of

harassment for coercing the informant to meet the said unlawful

demand of the petitioners, the petitioners used to abuse her and taunt

her. The informant was not provided any treatment for 4-5 days even

after she became ill and only after 4-5 days of illness medicine was

2

Cr. M.P. No.1320 of 2019

(2025:JHHC:38374)

given to her, that too such medicine which only made her drowsy and

when the informant refused to take the medicine, she was assaulted.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Criminal

Appeal No.195 of 2022 dated 08.02.2022 wherein in the facts of that case

where there was a second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the

complaint was that all the accused persons harassed the complainant

mentally and treated her of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of

that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the F.I.R. of

that case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta Mehrotra &

Another vs. State of U.P. & Another passed in Criminal Appeal

No.1674 of 2012 dated 17.10.2012 and submits that in that case the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the

case of G. V. Rap vs. L. H. V. Prasad & Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC

693 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken not