Laldeo Minz @ Oraon @ Laldeo Oraon, aged about 41 years, son of Rajendra v. 1. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ------ Laldeo Minz @ Oraon @ Laldeo Oraon, aged about 41 years, son of Rajendra Minz, resident of Mahavir Nagar, Bukbula, Khalari, P.O. and P.S.-Khalari, District-Ranchi. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … Petitioner 2. Usha Kumari, wife of Haribhajan Minz, daughter of Champa Oraon, presently residing at Village-Kusku, P.O. and P.S.-Burmu, District-Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Facts
By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 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 the prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2019 in connection with Complaint Case No.4749 of 2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and 1 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case for the offences committed inter alia by the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the husband of the complainant for having committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner treated the complainant with cruelty by harassing her to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs to be brought by the complainant from her family members. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner prevailed upon the complainant and her husband soon after their marriage to keep the door of their bedroom open with lights on and taking advantage of the same, made the video of intimate relationship between the complainant and her husband and after capturing those videos, demanded Rs.5 lakhs to be brought by the complainant from her family members and when the said demand was not met, the petitioner harassed the complainant by assaulting her and threatening her to show the obscene photographs of the complainant, secretly captured by the petitioner, to the villagers and also threatened the complainant to throw her dead body on the railway line; after killing her. In the meanwhile, the complainant became pregnant but she came to know about the same after going to her paternal house; as her father took her to gave her respite from the harassment and ill treatment meted out to her, by the petitioner and the co-accused husband of the complainant. On 31.08.2018, the petitioner and the co-accused person assaulted the 2 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) complainant in her paternal house, to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs and when the father and brother of the complainant refused to pay the said amount, they were also assaulted and abused. On 07.10.2018, the brother, father of the complainant and others came to the matrimonial house of the complainant for settlement but the petitioner and the co-accused person remained adamant, for meeting of their unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs, as a condition precedent to keep the complainant in her matrimonial house and again assaulted her and drove her out from her matrimonial house and also threatened to show the obscene photographs of the complainant, to the villagers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case where there was no specific details or description of any particular instance of harassment against the appellants no.2 to 6 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and no time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred was described; raised concern about the notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country and quashed the criminal proceeding including charge sheet of that court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 and submits that therein in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied 3 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) upon its own judgements in other cases and in the facts of that case, as he Court became convinced that the complainant involved his husband and close relatives with a false motive; quashed the proceeding arising out of the FIR of that case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Digambar and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 and submits that therein in the facts of that case after coming to the conclusion that the proceedings was initiated with the ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to consent to the divorce, according to the terms of the complainant and as the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple, quashed the criminal proceeding against the appellant in connection with the FIR of the concerned case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay D. Jain and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2090 wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case, when the perusal of the FIR at its consideration in their entirety indicated that the statements were of general nature have been made against the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, quashed the FIR in part. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 INSC 683 wherein 4 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) the facts of that case, there was no reference to any date or time of the incident in the FIR, the allegations were true, vague and general, there was delay in lodging the FIR, quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR of that case. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shanti Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:15868 wherein in the facts of that case, when the case revealed that only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and no specific and distinct allegations have been made against the petitioners before this Court in that case and as none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role and allegations were general and omnibus against them, the co- ordinate bench of this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance in the concerned case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working as a Machine Operator in Central Coalfields Limited, hence, criminal proceeding will have serious adverse consequence over his service. It is next submitted that the petitioner resides separately at his workplace of posting and the allegations against the petitioner are false and unimaginable. It is next submitted that none of the inquiry witnesses have stated that they have seen an unobjectionable snap or video, which alleged to have been captured by the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) 12. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that unlike the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this is not a case where the date and place of the occurrence has not been mentioned and it is not even the case of the petitioner that the date and place of the occurrence has not been mentioned rather there is direct and specific allegation of serious nature against the petitioner that the petitioner harassed the complainant in most cruel manner, as has already been described in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, only to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs to be brought by the complainant from her brother and father which the brother and father of the complainant being poor person, were unable to meet and the petitioner took the adamant attitude by insisting upon the payment of Rs.5 lakhs, as a condition precedent, to allow the complainant reside in her matrimonial house; even though she was pregnant and because of the failure on the part of the complainant and her relatives to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs, the complainant has not yet been allowed to remain in her matrimonial house. It is next submitted that under such circumstances, the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is next submitted that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence of cruelty as defined in Section 498A clause ‘(b)’ of the Indian Penal Code is squarely made out. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he is residing separately is the defence 6 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) of the petitioner; which he can take during the trial of the case, but the same cannot be considered to be gospel truth and certainly, this Court cannot consider the defence, of the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 13. 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 the undisputed facts remains that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of harassing the complainant by capturing intimate photographs of her with her husband and threatening to make the same to be seen by the villagers, only to coerce the complainant to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs to be brought by the complainant from her brother and father; which the brother and father of complainant were unable to meet. Not only that, the petitioner became adamant that meeting of the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs is a condition precedent for allowing the complainant to reside in her matrimonial house, though the undisputed facts remains that the complainant was pregnant out of her matrimony with the brother of the petitioner. The related dates and place have been mentioned in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the other materials available in the record. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that unlike the judgments which were relied upon by the petitioner, this is not a case where the date and place of occurrence has not been mentioned 7 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) rather not only the dates and place of the occurrence have been mentioned but the specific role of the petitioners in secretly capturing the obscene photographs of the complainant, threatening her to make her photographs to be seen by the villagers, unless, the complainant meets the unlawful demand of Rs.5 lakhs to be brought by her from her father and brother and assaulting her even in front of her brother and father besides assaulting her in her matrimonial house to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand; is direct and specific. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to this case; as the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of those cases. 16. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he is residing separately is concerned, the same is at the most a defence of the petitioner; which he can take during the trial of case. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 17. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been 8 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33406 ) held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 18. It is also a settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial 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) 19. In view of the discussions made above and as there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of treating the complainant with cruelty, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 11/11/2025 9 Cr. M.P. No.4753 of 2022