Surendra Pratap Jayswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate Ms. Chanchal Chaya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : None ------

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

1 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

¶18

[2026:JHHC:3598]

¶19

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-849 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has found prima facie case inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 406, 498A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶20

The brief fact of the case is that the allegation of the complainant is that consequent upon her marriage with her husband, her husband demanded Rs.11,00,000/- to invest in his business at Bangalore to be given by the father of the complainant and he used to assault the complainant for the purpose of coercing her to meet the said unlawful demand. There is also allegation that on 12.01.2018, the complainant was assaulted and all her certificates and testimonials were taken away and she came to her father’s house. There is further allegation that on 29.04.2018, all the accused persons of the case came to the house of her father and wanted to forcibly make the complainant sign the divorce paper and when the complainant refused to do so, they assaulted her.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sushila & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2025 INSC 505 and submits that

¶22

2 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

¶23

[2026:JHHC:3598]

¶24

therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana & Another reported in (2024) INSC 953 wherein in the facts of that case, as in the FIR, no substantial and specific allegations was made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further went on to held that it is a well recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and accusations concrete evidence or sweeping unsupported by particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Therefore, the courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. It is next submitted that in this case also, the main allegation is against the husband of the complainant and the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and of doing mar-pit . There is no material to show that any hurt was caused to the complainant nor is there any specific allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to

¶25

3 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

¶26

[2026:JHHC:3598]

¶27

the complainant or demanding dowry or any money or harassing the complainant in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complaint case has been filed after the husband of the complainant filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide M.C. Case No. 168 of 2017 on 29.08.2017 and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has dissolved the marriage between the son of the petitioners and the complainant vide ex-parte order and decree dated 15.12.2018 and this complaint was filed on 14.05.2018 much after filing of the said petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for wreaking vengeance. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶28

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the offences in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has found prima facie case, is, in fact, made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶29

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 here that there is absolutely no direct and specific allegation against the petitioners. The allegation is only against the

¶30

4 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

¶31

[2026:JHHC:3598]

¶32

husband of the complainant of demanding of Rs.11,00,000/- and assaulting her on several occasions. There is no allegation against the petitioners of demanding any dowry or making any unlawful demand nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of harassing the complainant to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand. The only specific allegation is that on 29.04.2018, the petitioners also wanted the complainant to sign the divorce papers by use of force though there is allegation of mar-pit on that day but it has not been specifically mentioned as to who did the mar-pit . There is no material in the record to suggest that because of mar-pit , the complainant sustained bodily pain, disease or infirmity. In the absence of the same, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana & Another (supra) , this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of constituting any offence in respect of which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa has found prima facie case, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-849 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶33

5 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

¶34

[2026:JHHC:3598]

¶35

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-849 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶36

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06^th of February, 2026 AFR/ Saroj

¶39

Uploaded on 16/02/2026

¶40

6 Cr. M.P. No.1610 of 2021

Surendra Pratap Jayswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Pratap Jayswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arpan Barla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Verma Alias Cikash Kumar Sinha Alias Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arshadi Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moti Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand