Kahnaiya Beldar Alias Om Prakash Beldar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:1044 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1980 of 2024

¶3

Kahnaiya Beldar @ Om Prakash Beldar @ Kanhaiya Beldar, aged about 48 years, S/o Bhuneshwar Beldar, R/o New Shyam Bazar Modidih Basti, Chotanagri, P.O. & P.S.- Shyam Bazar Modidih Basti, Dist.Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶4

Kanti Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Kahnaiya Beldar @ Om Prakash Beldar @ Kanhaiya Beldar, R/o New Shyam Bazar Modidih Basti, Chotanagri, P.O. & P.S.- Shyam Bazar Modidih Basti, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Ruma Kumari, Aged about 24 years, W/o Saurav Kumar, D/o Devanand Chauhan, R/o Bhuli, E Block, Sector 111, Quarter 561, P.O.- bhuli, P.S.- Bankmore (Bhuli OP), Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶7

.….. Opposite Parties

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal , Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Shekhar , Adv. Mr. Ayush Raj , Adv. Mr. Mehul Raj , Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Adv.

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.01.2024 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Dhanbad has issued the summon against the petitioners after finding the prima facie case inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 307, 313, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the D.P.Act in connection with the Complaint Case no. 8529 of 2023, is made out.

¶13

1

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 1980 of 2024

¶15

[ 2026:JHHC:1044 ]

¶16

The allegation against the petitioners are that the petitioners respectively being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant - opp. party no. 2, in furtherance of their common intention with their son namely Saurav Kumar demanded dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and a bike and treated the complainant with cruelty by harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- and by telling her to indulged in prostitution and they will arrange the prospective customers for prostitution. There is also allegation against the petitioners of forcing the complainant to indulge in illegal business of selling liquor and to wash the glass tumblers in which mahua liquor used to be sold illegally by the petitioner no. 1. There is further allegation that the petitioners and the accused persons attempted to murder the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that she was assaulted and abused frequently by her husband with the aid of the petitioners. On the basis of the complaint, The statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement on the inquiry witnesses, learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the said offence, as already indicated above and took up the investigation of the case.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant in her statement on Solemn Affirmation has stated that it is her husband who used to assault and abuse her and was demanding the dowry. It is next submitted that the petitioners are elderly persons and the petitioners have been implicated in this case with oblique motive, hence, the prosecution of the petitioners to the case, is unnecessary and uncalled for, hence, it is submitted that prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶18

Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and a bike, as has specifically been mentioned in para 3 of the complaint. It is

¶19

2

¶20

Cr.M.P. No. 1980 of 2024

¶21

[ 2026:JHHC:1044 ]

¶22

further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of harassing the complainant by forcing her to be involved in illegal sale of liquor; with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. It is next submitted that there is also allegation against the petitioner no. 2 of taking away the jewellery of the complainant as a means of harassment to the complainant, to coerce her to meet the said unlawful demand. It is further submitted that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which, prima facie case has been found by learned Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶23

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of making dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a bike and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the complainant in most obnoxious manner by telling her to indulge in prostitution and the petitioners would arrange prospective customers for her or prostitution as a means to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand. True it is that in para 7 of her statement on Solemn Affirmation, the complainant has stated that her husband was demanding the dowry. But this statement that her husband was demanding dowry does not mean that the petitioners were not demanding the dowry, as the complainant has not stated that only have husband was demanding dowry. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record, as already discussed in detail in the following paragraphs of this judgement, are sufficient to constitute the offence as in respect of which, the landed Magistrate has found prima facie case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners in this CrMP in exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC.

¶24

3

¶25

Cr.M.P. No. 1980 of 2024

¶26

[ 2026:JHHC:1044 ]

¶27