The High Court cannot conduct a 'mini trial' or evaluate the veracity of the accused's defense while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), as the appreciation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the trial court.

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 entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. of Parsudih P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 including the order dated 02.05.2017 by which the complaint of the complainant was sent under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R. and also the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur whereby the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A , 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken by the learned Magistrate and also to quash and set aside the order framing charge dated 21.11.2025 by which charges for the offences punishable under Section 498A , 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been made.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant-informant treated her with cruelty as by his wilful conduct the petitioner grabbed the neck of the complainant-informant and threw her down with force and injured her on her face, which was of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury and danger to life and limb of the complainant-informant. There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-to be brought by the complainant-informant from her father and then only she will be taken back in her matrimonial house. There is further allegation against the petitioner of harassing the complainant-informant by indulging in her character assassination by disowning the male child given birth by her during her marriage subsisting with the petitioner and accusing her of having illicit relationship with his own younger brother; all this were done by the petitioner, with the sole intention of coercing the complainant-informant to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.10,00,000/- to be brought by the complainant-informant from her father. On the basis of the complaint being forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., Parsudih P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge-sheet and basing upon the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences were taken and subsequently charges have been framed as already indicated above in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is employed in the Indian Army. It is further submitted that the marriage between the parties was a love marriage. The petitioner wanted the informant to join him at Baroda where he was transferred but the informant, in turn, wanted to shift to her parental house even after birth of the child. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate the facts of the case. It is further submitted that there is a delay of one month in lodging the complaint. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Spl. 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 and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of indulging in wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury