Dismissed¶27

Mamta Verma Alias Mamta Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Dec 2025Cr.M.P./167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing petition dismissed by Jharkhand High Court (Cr.M.P. No. 167 of 2023, decided 06-12-2025); cognizance order dated 11.10.2021 for IPC Sections 341, 323, 379, 385, 504, 506, 306, 511 & 34 left intact; Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018 / G.R. Case No. 40 of 2018 proceedings continue; trial concluded and charge unchallenged; two-day FIR delay and prior counter-cases (Giridih (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017; Complaint Case No. 1737 of 2017) held insufficient ground for quashing at post-trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner did not challenge the charge framed against her by the trial court, and the evidence that emerged during the trial was not brought on record before this Court. ¶25

Mamta Verma Alias Mamta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:38335 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 167 of 2023

¶3

Mamta Verma @ Mamta Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Jaypal Singh, resident of B.B.C., Road, Giridih, P.S. –Giridih(T), P.O. & District –Giridih. .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Mira Singh, wife of Dinesh Singh, resident of Barmasia, Chiraiyaghat Road, P.S. –Giridih (T), P.O. & District -Giridih.

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Murty, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kant Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

¶14

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 40 of 2018 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11.10.2021 in respect of the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 379, 385, 504, 506, 306, 511 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the case is already over and the case is fixed to hearing of the arguments on the merits of the case before the trial court. The

¶16

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.167 of 2023

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:38335 )

¶19

petitioner has not challenged the order by which charge has been framed against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations made against the petitioners are false. It is then submitted that there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the petitioner lodged Giridih (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017 against the informant and others and also filed Complaint Case No. 1737 of 2017 against the husband of the informant, therefore, this false case has been foisted. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶20

The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the overwhelming evidence has come during the trial of the case to bring home each of the charges which the petitioner is facing in the trial and the petitioner knowing pretty well that the charge has rightly been framed has not even dared to challenge the charge framed against him by the trial court. It is further submitted that since the trial is at its fag end, in view of the evidence that has come during the trial, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this court finds that the only contention of the petitioner is that there is a delay of two

¶22

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.167 of 2023

¶24

( 2025:JHHC:38335 )

¶25

days in lodging the F.I.R. and earlier two cases were instituted by the petitioner out of which one was against the informant and others and the second complaint case was against the husband of the informant. The undisputed fact remains that the trial is already over and the case is fixed for hearing of the argument by the trial court. The petitioner for reason best known to him has not challenged the charge framed against him by the trial court and the evidence that has come during the trial has not been brought on record. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, then the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner is made out.

¶26

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner be allowed in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27