IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.1878 of 2023

------

1. Vijay Anand age 72 years old, son of late T.R. Anand

2. Vanita Anand age 70 years old, W/O Vijay Anand

3. Vandana Anand age 43 years, D/O Vijay Anand

All are resident of 14/456, Anand House, Sunder Vihar,

Paschim Vihar, P.O. & P.S. Paschim Vihar – West, District Outer

District, Delhi … Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jyoti Anand D/o Jang Bahadur Sahgal, R/o R. K. Chatarjee lane,

Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O. + P.S. Chas, District – Bokaro

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyansachi, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vijayant Verma, 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 as well as the F.I.R. in connection with Chas (Mahila) P.S. Case No.23 of

2022.

3. Though it is the admitted case of the petitioners that police after investigation of the case has submitted charge-sheet against all the

petitioners and the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the charge-sheet has taken cognizance of the offence against all the three petitioners but the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them have not challenged the cognizance order and have only challenged the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, treated the informant with cruelty by harassing her to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of giving her daughter born out of the wedlock of her husband who is the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of the petitioner No.3; which unlawful demand was not agreed to by the informant. There is further allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the informant black and blue and specifically one of such incidents has been mentioned in the F.I.R. which took place on 29.01.2022 between 8:30 pm to 9:00 pm when the petitioners besides severely assaulting the informant, tore her clothes, kicked her on her abdomen leading to bleeding in her private part. They broke the phone of the informant and in order to kill the informant pressed her nose and mouth. Besides this particular incident, there is also allegation of the informant frequently being assaulted and when the informant became pregnant she was assaulted and was driven out from her matrimonial house; and she was forced to come to her paternal house and gave birth to a daughter on 19.11.2021. There is also allegation against the petitioners of snatching away the jewelry of the informant and ultimately driving her out with her two months’ old daughter from her matrimonial house because of the informant not giving in to the unlawful demand of the petitioners, to give her daughter to the petitioner No.3. On the basis of the written- report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro Mahila and Women and Child Protection Case No.23 of 2022 and took up the investigation of the case and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and baseless. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant and the petitioner No.3 is the married sister-in-law of the informant. It is next submitted that there is a delay of five months in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the cause of action for institution of the case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, hence, the case ought not have be