IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.77 of 2026 ------

1. Shashi Sekhar Giri @ Shashi Goswami, aged about 31 years, son of Manish Kumar Giri

2. Raushan Kumar Giri @ Roshan Giri, aged about 26 years, son of Manish Kumar Giri Both are resident of Village-Manta Garha, Chotki Murram, Bazar Tand Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh

3. Rinku Devi, aged about 40 years, wife of Mukesh Kumar, resident of Village-Makhdumpur Dih, P.O. & P.S.-Makhdumpur, Dist.-

Jehanabad (Bihar)

… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kr. Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.

------

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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (6)/ 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case.

3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not press the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in respect of the petitioner no.3-

Rinku Devi.

4. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as the petitioner no.3-Rinku Devi is concerned.

5. So far as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the allegation against the petitioners is that both the petitioner nos.1 and 2 being the brothers-in-law of the informant i.e. the brothers of his wife, have pressurized the informant to withdraw his divorce case and the petitioner nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, are demanding Rs.7,00,000/- from the informant and thereby a threatening is given by the co-accused Indu Devi and her husband Ramanand Goswami. Rinku Devi being the petitioner no.3 from time-to-time is threatening to send the informant to jail by implicating him in a false case. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.491 of 2024 and took up the investigation of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and 2 submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The specific allegation of demand of money from the informant is against Indu Devi, Ramanand Goswami and Rinku Devi-petitioner no.3. There is no direct allegation against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 of demanding any money or extortion. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is false. Admittedly, this case has been instituted after institution of the case by the co-accused-Divya Jyoti, alleging treatment with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry inter alia against the informant, which has been registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.168 of 2023 and because of the same, this false case has been foisted inter alia against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to wreak vengeance. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 308 (6)/3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 308 (6) of the B.N.S., 2023. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials availab