AMARDEEP SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3585 of 2023
1. Amardeep Singh @ Amardeep, aged about 30 years, son of Sanjay
Singh
2. Niraj Devi, aged about 55 years, wife of Sanjay Singh
3. Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of
Ramashish Singh
4. Anjali Singh @ Anjali Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of
Amardeep Singh, All resident of Red Cross Road, Adampur,
Jagdamba Market, P.O. & P.S. –Admpur, District –Bhagalpur
(Bihar).
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shristy Kumari @ Sannu, daughter of Amit Kumar Choudhary,
rd
resident of Vidyanand Apartment, 3 Floor, Baligum Mango, P.O.
& P.S. –M.G.M., Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum.
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the
entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 925
of 2021 including the order dated 12.09.2023, passed by the
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
1
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
st
Judicial Magistrate -1 Class, Jamshedpur in connection with the
st
said complaint case by which the learned Judicial Magistrate -1
Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences
punishable under Section 498A/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners files a supplementary
affidavit. Keep the same in the record.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no.1 is the
husband, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is
the father-in-law of the complainant –opposite party no.2 and
petitioner no.4 is stated to be the wife of the petitioner no.1 in the
cause title of the Cr.M.P. but orally it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the same is an error of record and
in fact the petitioner no.4 is the wife of the elder brother of the
petitioner no.1. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioners have taken dowry of Rs.30,00,000/- is shape of cheque,
cash and online transactions from the father of the complainant.
After the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no.1, the
petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry they could extract
from the father of the complainant and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-
more as additional dowry. As the father of the complainant could
not meet the said additional dowry demand, the petitioners
treated the complainant with cruelty, both mentally and
physically. They used to assault her and also threatened to kill her
so that the petitioner no.1 can solemnize a second marriage after
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
2
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
the death of the complainant; after taking huge amount of dowry.
There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1,
2 & 3 of assaulting the complainant on 02.07.2019 for non-
fulfillment of the said dowry demand. The complainant informed
the same to her mother and her mother reached the matrimonial
house of the complainant and tried to convince the petitioners but
all the petitioners were adamant for realization of the additional
dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and straightway told that unless
the said demand is fulfilled, they will not keep the complainant in
her matrimonial house. The petitioners also abused and
misbehaved with the mother of the complainant and forcibly
driven the mother of the complainant and the complainant from
her matrimonial house and did not even allow the complainant to
take her belongings. The complainant was treated by a doctor for
the injuries caused to her; by the repeated assault made upon her
by the petitioners. On the basis of the complainant, statement of
the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the
st
inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1 Class,
Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offences as already
indicated above.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations against the petitioners are false. The complainant has
fled away with another boy and in this regard the father of the
complainant lodged a Sanha with the R.T.I. P.S. with respect to the
complainant becoming traceless. It is next submitted that the
petitioner no.1 has filed Matrimonial Case No. 302 of 2019 in the
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
3
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
Family Court, Bhagalpur on 14.10.2019 which is sub judice at
present and this complaint has been lodged after receiving the
notice of the said Matrimonial Case. It is next submitted that this
case has falsely been foisted by the complainant with the view to
put pressure on the petitioners and to cause harassment to them.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the
petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of taking dowry of
Rs.30,00,000/- and as the greed of the petitioners is not satiated by
such dowry demand, making further demand of Additional
dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is next submitted that there is also
direct and specific allegation of the wilful conduct of the
petitioners of such a nature; so as to cause danger to life, limb and
both mental and physical health of the complainant and also the
petitioners harassed the complainant with a view to coerce her to
meet the unlawful dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is next
submitted that since the opposite party no.2 is very much present
before this Court through her lawyer, it is only a character
assassination of the opposite party no.2 by the petitioners of
taking the plea that the complainant-opposite party no.2 is
traceless. It is next submitted that the veracity of the documents
filed by the petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit is
required to be scrutinized by the trial court but the very
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
4
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
appearance of the complainant-opposite party no.2 before this
Court is sufficient enough to show the conduct of the petitioners
that they can stoop to any low to harass the complainant-opposite
party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous
petition being without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, this court finds that
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of
taking dowry at the time of marriage of the complainant with the
petitioner no.1. There is also direct and specific allegation against
all the petitioners of taking dowry at the time of marriage of the
complainant with the petitioner no.1. There is also direct and
specific allegation against the petitioners of demanding further
dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and these demands are sufficient enough
to constitute the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. Besides there is also allegation of wilful
conduct on the part of the petitioners of such a nature; as is likely
to cause danger to the life, limb and both mental and physical
health of the complainant. Further, there is also allegation of
harassment of the complainant with the view to coerce her to meet
the unlawful demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and on account of failure
by her and her relatives to meet the such demand of assaulting
her causing injuries and threatening her to kill. The presence of
the opposite party no.2 in this Court through a lawyer prima facie
shows that the opposite party no.2 is not traceless as is being
claimed by the petitioners and it indicates the effort on the part of
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
5
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
the petitioner of resorting to character assassination of the
opposite party no.2.
8. It is a settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini-trial
has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors.
case of
reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 , the relevant portion of which
reads as under :-
“ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC,
it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a
mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and
while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As
observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no
mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of
power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage
of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the
High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the
particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
9. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the
petitioners and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the
accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be 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 & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 .
10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that if the allegations made against the
petitioners, are considered to be true in their entirety, the offences
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
6
( 2026:JHHC:32027 )
as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against
the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accede to the
prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 27 October, 2026
AFR/Sonu/-
Uploaded on 03.11.2026
Cr.M.P. No.3585 of 2023
7