Kumar Gautam Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

[ 2025:JHHC:30940]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

¶3

Kumar Gautam Sahu S/o Ramlakhan Sahu, age 40 years

¶4

Ramlakhan Sahu S/o Late Ghuran Sahu, age 75 years

¶5

Usha Devi w/o Ramlakhan Sahu, age 68 years All R/o H.No. 2318/A, Chitawan, Arbind Nagar, Harmu, Po+PSArgora, DistRanchi-834002, Jharkhand.

¶6

Uttam Sahu @ Uttam Kumar, S/o Ramlakhan Sahu, age 47 years R/o Sahu Niwas, c/o Dhiraj Sahu, Near Sahjanand Chowk, Harmu, Po+PS- Argora, DistRanchi-834002, Jharkhand

¶7

...... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Babita Kumari, D/o Sri Mahabir Sahu, R/o VillageBadam, P.O. +P.S.- Badam, Dist.- Hazaribag

¶11

….. Opposite Parties

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhashish Rasik Soren, Adv. Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. PP

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶16

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. case no. 285 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 5016 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, of IPC and consequential reliefs.

¶17

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners caused hurt and wrongfully restrained the informant who is the ex-wife of the petitioner no. 1 while the petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 are respectively the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-

¶18

1

¶19

Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

¶20

[ 2025:JHHC:30940]

¶21

law of the informant. The FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC but during investigation of the case, the police only found that the allegations makes out the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the said offences and basing upon the same, learned JMFC, Ranchi took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since there was an exam of the girl child of the informant and the petitioner no. 1, who is a student of pre-nursery in a school, at Harmu, hence, on humanitarian ground, the informant was allowed to live at her matrimonial house with her child but she is not vacating the house.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shaileshbhari Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. Passed in Cr. Appeal no. 1884 of 2013 dated 28.08.2024, and submits that in para 8 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the High Court under section 482 of CrPC, retains the power to quash an FIR, even after chargesheet under section 173 (2) thereof is filed, provided the satisfaction is reached inter alia that the FIR and the charge sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukesh & Ors,. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Passed in a Cr. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) no. 12354 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in a petition for quashing either under Section 482 of CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process

¶25

2

¶26

Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

¶27

[ 2025:JHHC:30940]

¶28

of law and in such proceeding, the accused can rely upon the documents which are not the part of the charge-sheet.

¶29

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier the father of the informant instituted a case involving the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC in which, the petitioner no. 2 to 3 were the accused persons, and in that case, as the prosecution could not prove and establish the charge against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the petitioner no. 1 to 3 were acquitted, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶30

Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and wrongfully restrained the informant and the said allegations were found to be true during the investigation of the case and finding the said allegations to be true, police submitted charge sheet in respect of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 341 / 323 of IPC and the cognizance of the said offences has been taken by learned Magistrate on the basis of the chargesheet submitted in the case.

¶31

It is next submitted by learned Addl.PP that as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shaileshbhari Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), the law is well settled that if the contents of FIR and chargesheet are read together, when accepted to be true and correct without rebuttal, discloses the commission of offence, such proceedings cannot be termed as abuse of process of law and ought not be quashed, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of causing hurt to the informant and wrongfully

¶33

3

¶34

Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

¶35

[ 2025:JHHC:30940]

¶36

restraining her which was found to be true during the investigation of the case. It is a settled principle of law that a person of an unauthorized occupation of any place, can only be evicted through due process of law. Under the circumstances, if the contents of the FIR as well as the Case Diary are considered to be true in their entirety, then undisputedly, both the offences punishable under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC, are made out against the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that such allegations are false is a defence of the petitioners, which they can take during the full dress trial of the case but certainly the same cannot be the ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding; as it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, cannot consider the defence of an accused person and the veracity of the evidence, put forth by the accused as that will 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 reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

¶37

It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. In the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, para 11 of which reads as under :-

¶38

“ 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

¶39

4

¶40

Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

¶41

[ 2025:JHHC:30940]

¶42

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)

¶43

Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law, that the defence of an accused person of a case, cannot be considered before prosecution adduces evidence and in view of the settled principle of law and the FIR and the charge sheet, if are considered to be true, the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC is made out against the petitioners.

¶44

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. case no. 285 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 5016 of 2017 be quashed and set aside.

¶45

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶46

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶47

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 17^th September, 2025 Smita /AFR

¶48

5

¶49

Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2019

Kumar Gautam Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Gautam Sahu 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

Jagnarayan Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhukar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Perwez Alias MD Paevej Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shatrughan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Rahim Ali Jiya Vs the State of Jharkhand