Suchand Majhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:30936)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.492 of 2022

------

Suchand Majhi son of Shri Sohan Majhi aged about 30 years resident of village – Otar, P.S. + P.O.- Otar, Distt.- West Singhbhum

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Sujata Soren wife of Sri Suchanad Majhi @ Suchand Murmu Daughter of Sri Subrata Soren resident of village – Phulpul, P.O.Bankati P.S.- Ghatshila Distt.- East Singhbhum

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None

¶11

------

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶15

No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Ghatshila P.S. Case No.37 of 2021 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the said case in which after investigation of the case, police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494, 323, 341, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶17

¶18

Cr. M.P. No.492 of 2022

¶19

(2025:JHHC:30936)

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences but the petitioner is not challenging the order taking cognizance.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant/informant, treated her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and during the subsistence of the marriage with the complainant/informant, married another lady and committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the complainant/informant. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.137 of 2021 which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.. Basing upon the same Ghatshila P.S. Case No.37 of 2021 was registered. After submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the said offences has been taken by the learned trial court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶23

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 the veracity of the defence cannot be tested by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and since the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be true during the investigation of the case, hence, there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

2 Cr. M.P. No.492 of 2022

¶26

(2025:JHHC:30936)

¶27

here that it is a settled principle of law, that the defence of the accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court, as that would be the 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 & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

¶28

It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should not stifle with a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 .

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs.

¶30

State of Punjab & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 paragraph11 of which reads as under:-

¶31

“ 11 . The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶32

¶33

Cr. M.P. No.492 of 2022

¶34

(2025:JHHC:30936)

¶35

has reiterated the settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person of the case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence in the case.

¶36

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations against him are false. To verify such contention of the petitioner, evidence is required to be recorded and the same can only be done in a full-dress trial of the case. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner which were found to be true during the investigation of the case by the police and the cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the learned Magistrate but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner without any plausible reason; there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.

¶37

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶38

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶39

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07^th of October, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 08/10/2025

¶40

¶41

Cr. M.P. No.492 of 2022

Suchand Majhi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchand Majhi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prit Ray Alias Ram Prit Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prityush Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjiv Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Utim Raj Commercial Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Anirudh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Krishna Pathak Alias Ram Kripa Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand