Dismissed¶18

Chandan Kumar Jha v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2024Cr.M.P./1118/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; section 482 Cr.P.C.; Mahagama P.S. Case No. 130 of 2016; G.R. No. 1463 of 2016; Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Godda; dowry demand Rs. 5 lakhs; physical assault of informant; charge sheet No. 231 of 2022 dated 20.10.2022; cognizance order not under challenge; divorce case filed by petitioner; High Court of Jharkhand Ranchi; Cr.M.P. 1118 of 2017; Chandan Kumar Jha; Kumari Vijeta; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Looking into the contents of the First Information Report, there is allegation against the petitioner of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. ¶15

Chandan Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 130 of 2016 G.R. No. 1463 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda is liable to be quashed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Court's answer

Looking into the contents of the First Information Report, there is allegation against the petitioner of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

As disclosed in paragraph 10 of the FIR, the petitioner physically assaulted the informant and she was not allowed to talk with any family members of her parental side.

¶17

Key takeaways

Allegations are there against the petitioner and he happened to be the husband of the informant.ratio¶17
The charge sheet has already been submitted on 20.10.2022 being charge Sheet No. 231 of 2022.ratio¶17
There is every chance that the learned court could have been taken cognizance by now and the cognizance order is not under challenge.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Justice) | Cr.M.P. No. 1118 of 2017 | Chandan Kumar Jha v. The State of Jharkhand & Kumari Vijeta | Decision dated 11/12.06.2024 | Dismissed. Petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 130 of 2016, G.R. No. 1463 of 2016, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. The FIR alleges that the petitioner, the husband of the informant, demanded Rs. 5 lakhs, physically assaulted her and did not allow her to talk with any family members of her parental side; counsel noted the petitioner had earlier filed a divorce case. The court observed that the charge sheet (No. 231 of 2022) had already been submitted on 20.10.2022, that cognizance may by now have been taken and the cognizance order is not under challenge, that parameters of quashing exist and allegations are present, and concluded this is not a case to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.; the petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1118 of 2017

¶3

Chandan Kumar Jha …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Kumari Vijeta …Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shah, Advocate For State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate

¶10

11/12.06.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶11

The prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 130 of 2016 G.R. No. 1463 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false case has been lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner happened to be the husband of the informant. He submits that no case is made out inspite of that First Information Report has been registered maliciously against the petitioner. Prior to filing of the present case, the petitioner filed a divorce case and on this ground he submits that entire First Information Report may kindly be quashed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State submits that now the matter has already been investigated and the charge sheet has already been submitted by the police on 20.10.2022 being charge Sheet No. 231 of 2022 and as such the entire materials are not before this Court and only First Information Report is under challenge and this petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there are clear cut allegation of assault and demanding of dowry by the petitioner in the present case. In view of that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶15

Looking into the contents of the First Information Report, it transpires that there is allegation against the petitioner of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. In paragraph 10 it has been disclosed that the petitioner had

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

physically assaulted the informant and she was not allowed to talk with any family members of her parental side. Thus allegations are there against the petitioner and he happened to be the husband of the informant. Further the charge sheet has already been submitted on 20.10.2022 being charge Sheet No. 231 of 2022 and there is every chance that the learned court could have been taken cognizance by now and the cognizance order is not under challenge. There are parameters of quashing of the First Information Report and allegations are there. This is not the case to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶19

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Chandan Kumar Jha v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Jha v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ratan Kumar Patwa Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Kripal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Bihari Choudhary And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhi Nath Ram And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.