IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2738 of 2023 Usha Devi, Aged about 46 Years, W/o – Dilip Kumar Malakar, R/o –Village –Bari Bhagiyamari, Sakrigali River Block, P.O. –Sakrigali, P.S. –Taljhari, District –Sahibganj.

.... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Priyanka Kumari, D/o –Sanjeev Mandal, R/o –Bada Jirwabari, Premnagar, P.O. –Borio, P.S. –Borio (Jirwabari), District –Sahibganj.

(Mobile No. 7294109961)

…. Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023

1. Dilip Kumar Malakar @ Dilip Malakar, Aged about 54 Years, S/o Devendra Malakar, 2. Ram Kumar Malakar @ Suraj Malakar @ Suraj Kumar, Aged about

20 Years, S/o –Dilip Kumar Malakar, Both are R/o Village –Bari Bhagiyamari, Sakrigali River Block, P.O.

–Sakrigali, P.S. –Taljhari, District –Sahibganj.

.... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Priyanka Kumari, D/o –Sanjeev Mandal, R/o –Bada Jirwabari, Premnagar, P.O. –Borio, P.S. –Borio (Jirwabari), District –Sahibganj.

(Mobile No. 7294109961).

…. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate : Mr.Deepak Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

: Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 323/504/506/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2738 of 2023 namely Usha Devi being the mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 1 of Cr.M.P. No. 2334 of 2023 being the father- in-law and the petitioner no.2 being the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant-opposite party no.2 have treated the informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, criminally intimidated her and intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence besides demanding Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and harassed the informant-opposite party no.2 with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and the harassment continued on account of failure of the informant-opposite party no.2 and her relatives to meet the said unlawful demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. The informant filed Complaint Case No. 575 of 2021 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022 has been registered and police has taken up investigation of the case and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is still going on at present.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that after institution of this case, the opposite party no.2 has instituted Complaint Case No. 77 of 2022 against the accused persons of the case in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but did not issue any summons to the petitioners of these two cases.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 submits that in the facts of that case, when the first complaint instituted by the complainant ended in a compromise and in which summons were issued only against the husband of the complainant but subsequently the complainant/informant lodged an F.I.R. against the husband as well as his family members, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering that there was no specific role att