URSILA TOPPO ALLIAS URSULA TOPPO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:32186)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 942 of 2026
1. Ursila Toppo, aged about 69 years, w/o Micheal Toppo,
2. Savita Soni Toppo, aged about 38 years, d/o Micheal Toppo
Both r/o Lowadih, Harijan Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rekha Ekka, d/o late Patrik Ekka, w/o Sujeet Madhukar
Toppo, r/o Prem Nagar, Madhuban Toli, P.O.+P.S.-
Lohardaga, Dist.-Lohardaga, Jharkhand
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
…..
By the Court:-
I.A. No.15684 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to
amend the Cr.M.P. No. 942 of 2026 by incorporating the
additional prayer to quash the order dated 10.08.2026
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 311 of 2025
whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial
1
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
Magistrate, Lohardaga has framed charges against the
petitioners in paragraph no.1 and prayer portion of this
criminal miscellaneous petition and also to insert
paragraph no.19A between paragraph no.19 and 20 in
support of the said additional prayer. It is next submitted
that the proposed amendment was necessitated because of
the developments which took place after filing of this
criminal miscellaneous petition and the proposed
amendment will not change the nature and character of
this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is lastly submitted
that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the
petitioners will be highly prejudiced.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for
amendment made in this interlocutory application is
allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners file the said
consolidated criminal miscellaneous petition. Keep the
same in the record.
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Cr.M.P. No. 942 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
2. Though notice has validly been 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.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528
of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.08.2025
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 311 of 2025,
whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(2), 352
and 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 as also the order dated
10.08.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga in connection with the said case; by which the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has framed
charges for the aforesaid offences.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioner no.1 being the mother-in-law and the petitioner
no.2 being the sister-in-law did not allow the informant to
enter into her matrimonial house at Lowadih and insulted
her. The main grievance of the informant is against her
husband being co-accused-Sujeet Madhukar Toppo. The
allegation of assault and taking of dowry is against the
3
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
husband of the informant and the allegation of
threatening is against the lady namely Artima Xess with
whom the informant alleges her husband to be having
illicit relationship and demand of Rs.3,00,000/- is made
against her.
5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant, police registered Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case. After
completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet
inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the
offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(2), 352
and 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga vide order dated
21.08.2025 in the said Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 23
of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 311 of 2025 took
cognizance of the said offence and on 10.08.2026 framed
charges of the said offences.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
submits that the case is next fixed on 15.01.2027 but so far,
no witnesses have been examined.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against
the petitioners of ever causing hurt to the informant so the
offence punishable under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023
is not made out against the petitioners. So far as the
4
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
offence punishable under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023
is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the allegation of threatening is against
Artima Xess and not against the petitioners, so, the offence
punishable under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also
not made out. So far as the offence punishable under
Section 85 of B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only
allegation against the petitioners is that they did not allow
the informant to enter her matrimonial house and that by
itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 85 of B.N.S., 2023; so the offence punishable
under Section 85 of B.N.S., 2023 is also not made out
against the petitioners. So far as the offence punishable
under Section 126(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
there is no allegation against the petitioners of wrongfully
restraining the informant and in the absence of the same,
the offence punishable under Section 126(2) of B.N.S., 2023
is not made out against the petitioners. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the offence punishable under Section 352 of B.N.S., 2023 is
also not made out in the absence of any allegation that
insult of the informant was of such a nature by which
provocation was given to the informant for causing her to
5
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
break public peace or any other offence. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the allegations against the petitioners are general and
omnibus in nature.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State
of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
para-20 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India relied upon its own judgment in the case of R.P.
Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summarized
some categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The
relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“20. This Court had occasion to examine the legal
position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v.
State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ
1239] this Court summarised some categories of cases
where inherent power can and should be exercised to
quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance of the
proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge.”
6
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
9. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for
by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition
be allowed.
10. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the
allegations against the petitioners are sufficient to
constitute each of the offences in respect of which charge
has been framed against the petitioners. Hence, it is
submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
11. 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 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neelu
Chopra & Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC
184 in the facts of that case observed thus, in para-9 and 10
of said judgment which reads as under:-
“9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere
mention of the sections and the language of those
sections is not the be all and end all of the matter.
What is required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence committed by
each and every accused and the role played by each
and every accused in committing of that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is
sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused
has committed what offence and what is the exact
role played by these appellants in the commission of
offence. There could be said something against
Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him
more precisely but he is no more and has already
expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an
abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution
7
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the
present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague
and general complaint which is silent about the
precise acts of the appellants.”
and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against
the aged parents of the husband as the allegations were
vague and general; which was silent about the precise act
of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case so far as the
offence punishable under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023
is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence are:-
(i) Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to the victim;
(ii) The accused did so with intention of causing hurt
or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause
hurt to the victim.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation of
assault upon the informant is only upon her husband.
There is absolutely no allegation of assault or causing hurt
to the informant by the petitioners. Under such
circumstances, this Court is no hesitation in holding that
even if the allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence
punishable under section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not
made out against either of the petitioners. Therefore, the
learned court below has committed a grave illegality by
8
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
framing charge against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351(2)
of B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredients to
constitute the said offence are:-
(i) The accused threatened someone with injury to his
person, reputation or property, or to the person,
reputation or property of another in whom the
former was interested;
(ii) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to
the victim of offence;
(iii) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform
any act which he was not legally bound to do.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of
threatening the informant in any manner rather the
allegation of threatening is against Artima Xess, so, even if
the entire allegation made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence
punishable under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not
made out against either of the petitioners.
16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 85 of
B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredients to
constitute the said offence are:-
(1) A woman was married;
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in-
(i) Any wilful conduct as was likely to drive
such woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to her life, limb or
health whether mental or physical;
(ii) Harm to such woman with a view of
coercing her to meet unlawful demand for
9
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
property or valuable security or on account
of failure of such woman or any of her
relations to meet the lawful demand;
(iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by
her husband or any relation of her husband
as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India
(2005) 6 SCC 281
reported in .
17. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only
allegation against the petitioners is that that petitioners
did not allow the informant to enter into her ancestral
matrimonial house and they insulted her and apart from
that there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners so, in the considered opinion of this Court even
if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still the same are
insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 85 of the B.N.S., 2023.
18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 126(2)
of B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredients to
constitute the said offence are:-
(i) Accused obstructed a person;
(ii) He did it voluntarily;
(iii) It prevented such person from proceeding in
certain direction in which he had the right to
proceed;
19. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of
obstructing anyone and in the absence of this essential
10
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in its entirety, still, the same is not
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 126(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
20. So far as the offence punishable under Section 352 of
B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredients to
constitute the said offence are:-
(i) The accused intentionally insulted someone’
(ii) He thereby intended to give him provocation;
(iii) He knew that it was likely that such provocation
would cause that person to commit a breach of the
peace or to commit any other offence.
21. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners
insulted the informant but there is no allegation against
the petitioners that the insult was of such type so as to
give provocation to the informant to commit breach of
peace or any other offence and in the absence of this
essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the entire allegation made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still,
the offence punishable under Section 352 of the B.N.S.,
2023 is not made out.
22. In view of the discussions made above, as none of
the offence in respect of which charge has been framed is
made out against the petitioners even if the entire
11
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:32186)
allegation made against the petitioners are considered to
be true in its entirety, hence, this Court is of the
considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law and this is a fit case where the entire
criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.08.2025
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 311 of 2025 as
also the order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with
the said case be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
23. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding
including the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in
connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of
2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 311 of 2025 as also the
order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with the said
case is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
24. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
rd
Dated the 3 November, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 04/11/2026
12
Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2026