Ajay Ghai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Ajay Ghai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No specific relief expressly recorded beyond disposal; the criminal miscellaneous petition (which sought quashing of the criminal proceeding and cognizance order) and I.A. No. 1131 of 2025 were disposed of in view of the settlement between the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 (Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act), including the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2020, should be quashed, the parties having arrived at a mutual compromise and settlement during pendency.

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties, their decision to take divorce by mutual consent, and the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 58, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No. 1131 of 2025 is also disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.M.P. No. 3304 of 2024 (with I.A. No. 1131 of 2025), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Coram: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; Order dated 10 February 2025. The petition sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2020, in Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 (G.R. No. 386 of 2020), registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During pendency, the petitioners and the informant arrived at a mutual compromise and settlement; pursuant thereto petitioner no. 1 and the informant filed a mutual divorce petition (M.J. Petitioner No. F-2749 of 2024, Family Court, Mumbai, Bandra, filed 20.08.2024), which has been admitted, and counsel for O.P. No. 2 did not dispute the factum of compromise. Relying on the apex court decision in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 58 (Para-17: the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice, and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code), the Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous petition and likewise disposed of I.A. No. 1131 of 2025. The order records disposal only; no express quashing direction is set out in the text.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3304 of 2024

With

I.A. No. 1131 of 2025

Ajay Ghai, aged about 41 years, Son of Ashok Ghai.

Ashok Ghai, aged about 69 years, Son of Late Girdhari Lal Ghai,

Ashish Ghai, aged about 42 years, Son of Sri Ashok Ghai.

Dipti Ghai, aged about 39 years, Wife of Sri, Ashish Ghai. All are residents of A-2/303, Bramha Suncity, Vadgaonsheri, Pune City, Dukirkline P.O.- Vadgaon Budruk, P.S.-Pune City, DistrictPune, State- Maharashtra. ….. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Urvashi Singh, Wife of Ajay Ghai, Daughter of Late Uday Pratap Singh, resident of House No. 43, Road No. 3, Vidyanagar, Harmu, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi ….. Opp. Parties

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Vivek Kumar Rai, Advocate.
For the State	: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2	: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate.

Order No. 03/Dated: 10^th February, 2025

1. This criminal miscellaneous petitioner has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2020 in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 386 of 2020, registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the present case, the petitioners and the informant have arrived at a mutual compromise and settlement, pursuant to which the petitioner no. 1 and the informant have filed a mutual divorce petition being

Page | 1

M.J. Petitioner No. F-2749 of 2024 at Family Court, Mumbai, Bandra on 20.08.2024 which has been admitted.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the further proceeding of the P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act will be the abuse of process of Court and would yield no fruitful result.

4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is present and has not disputed the factum of compromise.

5. In view of the settlement between the parties and their decisions for taking divorce on the ground of mutual consent and in view of the decision of Honb’le apex court rendered in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and Others reported in (2013)

4 SCC 58 in which it was held in Para-17 that the High court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1131 of 2025 is also disposed of.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Simran/

Page | 2