1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

----

Cr.M.P. No. 3208 of 2021

----

1.Baijnath Pandey @ Baidyanath Pandey, aged about 63 years, s/o Ram

Prasad Pandey

2.Sunita Pandey, aged about 53 years, w/o Baijnath Pandey @ Baidyanath

Pandey,

Both resident of Sahitya Samaj Chowk, PO/PS Daltonganj Town,

District Palamau (Jharkhand)

At present resident of vill.Manjhigaw, PO/PS-Bero, District-Ranchi

(Jharkhand)

….. Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Savitri Devi, w/o late Ashis Ranjan Pandey, resident of Sahitya Samaj

Chowk Sheo Mandir, PO/PS Daltonganj Town, District Palamau(Jharkhand)

…... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate

For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP

----

6/27.07.2022

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

dated 14.07.2020 taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Mahila

P.S.Case No.53/18, G.R.No.938/20, pending in the court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Daltonganj.

The O.P.No.2 filed the written statement before the police

officer alleging therein that marriage of the O.P.No.2 took place in the

year 2004 with Ashish Ranjan Pandey. It has been alleged that father in

law namely Baijnath Pandey was also not a good character man. It has

been alleged that Ashish Ranjan Pandey even not spared his own minor

daughter and assaulted her sexually. It has been further alleged that

father in law used to threat with different mode to the informant. It has

been alleged that father in law, mother in law and husband used to

assault the informant and torture physically and mentally. Since the

daughter has alleged about assault and rape threatening has been issued

to the informant of life. Further there are very serious allegations in the

petition.

2

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this

case is arising out of section 498-A IPC and this case is arising out of

matrimonial dispute and hence the criminal proceeding may kindly be

quashed.

Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent State submits that there are very serious allegations in the

FIR and this is not a case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C.

On perusal of the FIR this Court finds that there is direct

allegations against these petitioners which has been recorded

hereinabove. There are para meters of quashing of the order taking

cognizance as well as the FIR. This is not a fit case for exercising power

under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No. 3208 of 2021 is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/