Dr Jaykant Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:34254 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 713 of 2024

¶3

Jaykant Pathak @ Jaikant Pathak, Aged about 51 Years, Son of Late Baleshwar Pathak, Resident of Kedal, P.O. –Neori Vikas, P.S. – Sadar, District –Ranchi.

¶4

Amit Kumar, Aged 28 Years, Son of Dr. Jaykant Pathak, Resident of Kedal, P.O. –Neori Vikas, P.S. –Sadar, District –Ranchi.

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

Neera Kumari @ Nira Kumari, daughter of Late Srikant Trivedi, wife of Er. Amit Kumar, resident of PHED Colony, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. –Kanke, District –Ranchi. (Presently residing at Near Setu Printers, Ringroad, Sukurhuttu, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. –Kanke, District –Ranchi.

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. (Through V.C.)

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 765 of 2020 arising out of Kanke P.S. Case No.

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.713 of 2024

¶17

1

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:34254 )

¶19

38 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

¶20

Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2, no-one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

¶21

It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the meanwhile, after investigation of the case, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners, cognizance has been taken, charge has also been framed and four witnesses have been examined, including the informant but the petitioners have not challenged charge sheet submitted in this case, the cognizance order, the order by which charge has been framed against the petitioners but only wants that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. be quashed. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is the second journey of the petitioners with the self-same prayer of quashing the F.I.R. The petitioners earlier moved this Court by filing Cr.M.P. No. 2475 of 2019 for quashing the F.I.R. which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the grounds before the appropriate court at appropriate stage and the fresh ground is that though the petitioners filed petitions for grant of anticipatory bail but the same was dismissed for default and the Cr.M.P. No. 492 of 2021 filed for restoration of the anticipatory bail application has also

¶22

Cr.M.P. No.713 of 2024

¶23

2

¶24

( 2025:JHHC:34254 )

¶25

been dismissed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶26

The learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of serious nature of treating the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry of a land to be given to the petitioners and as the brother of the informant did not agree for the same, the informant was harassed with the intention of coercing her to meet the unlawful demand of the petitioners which was found to be true by the police after investigation of the case and the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands; as they have suppressed the material fact that so far four witnesses have been examined and the witnesses examined so far, have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is every chance of the petitioners of being convicted of the offences for which they have been charged with. Hence, it is submitted that at this belated stage, the prayer ought not to be allowed and this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 2475 of 2019 with the self-same prayer which has been dismissed as withdrawn. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of

¶28

Cr.M.P. No.713 of 2024

¶29

3

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:34254 )

¶31

treating the informant with cruelty by harassing her to meet their unlawful demand of giving a land to them by the brother of the informant and the harassment was caused for coercing the informant to meet the said unlawful demand.

¶32

Keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage and four witnesses have already been examined and that the petitioners have not made any prayer to quash either the charge sheet or the order by which charge has been framed, this Court at this belated stage, is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to be allowed in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33