1. Lalit Oraon aged about 35 years son of Bandhan Oraon; 2. Rita Kumari v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Savitri Oraon W/o Lalit Oraon, D/o Sukra
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2813 of 2021 ------ 1. Lalit Oraon aged about 35 years son of Bandhan Oraon; 2. Rita Kumari @ Rita Oraon aged about 23 years W/o Lalit Oraon; 3. Bandhan Oraon aged about 48 years S/o Late Dasai Oraon; 4. Sewati Oraon @ Sewat Oraon aged about 46 years W/o Bandhan Oraon; All resident of village Ugra Chapar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Senha, District Lohardaga. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Savitri Oraon W/o Lalit Oraon, D/o Sukra Oraon, resident of village Ugra Chapri Toli, P.O. and P.S. Senha, District-Lohardaga at present resident of Jalka Kend Toli, P.O. and P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla. … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Kismanti Minj, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P. ------ ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the informant/opposite party No.2 but no one turns up on behalf of the informant in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.25 of 2021 registered under Section 1 Cr. M.P. No.2813 of 2021 498A/494/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the husband, petitioner no.3 being the father in law, petitioner no.4 being the mother in law and petitioner no.2 being the concubine of the petitioner no.1 have treated the informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, intentionally insulted and criminally intimidated her in furtherance of their common intention and demanded dowry. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant/opposite party No.2, police registered Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.25 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is next submitted that the informant requested the petitioner No.1 to marry her and upon the petitioner no.1 refusing to marry her, the informant has filed this false case. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not the father of the child of the informant, the allegation made against the petitioner no.1 is false, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this 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 submit that in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial in order to ascertain the veracity of the defence of the petitioner and the same can only be agitated at the time of the full dress trial of the case. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners being the husband and his relatives, having treated the 2 Cr. M.P. No.2813 of 2021 informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit an offence and criminally intimidated her and the said offences have been committed by the petitioner in furtherance of their common intention, hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Therefore, 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 available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) that the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particulars of case and cannot hold a mini trial. 9. It is also a settled principle of law that a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 3 Cr. M.P. No.2813 of 2021 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remain that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners being the husband and the relatives of the husband, of treating the informant with cruelty, caused hurt to her, intentionally insulted her to provoke commission of offence by her and criminally intimidated her and the petitioners have committed the said offences, in furtherance of their common intention with the intention of meeting the unlawful demand of dowry. The only plea of the petitioners for quashing the criminal miscellaneous petition is that the allegation made in the FIR is false, certainly, such plea can be taken by the petitioner in their defence during the full-dress trial of the case, but falsity of allegation is certainly not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding by the High Court, in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer of the petitioners made in this Cr.M.P, hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of October, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 4 Cr. M.P. No.2813 of 2021