Manoj Kumar Alias Manoj Prasad And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:26306)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2208 of 2016
1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Prasad, s/o Dewanand Prasad,
resident of Anaith Ara, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Ara (Bihar)
2. Rajesh Prasad, s/o Triloki Prasad, resident of Bagbera Colony,
Road No. 6, Krishnappuri, P.S.+P.O.-Bagbeda, Town
Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kusum Devi, w/o late Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of
Village-Mohana Toli, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Khunti
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Mayank Mrinal, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
…..
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 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR in connection
with Khunti P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014, corresponding to
G.R. No. 435 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also to
quash the order taking cognizance dated 05.11.2015
1
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in
connection with the said case.
3. 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.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the
co-accused persons deceived the informant by posing that
the co-accused- Manoj Kumar is a prospective groom for
the daughter of the informant-complainant and an eligible
bachelor who is ready for a dowry less marriage and by so
deceiving induced the informant-complainant to part with
Rs.5,00,000/- by getting it transferred to the account of the
co-accused persons by bank transaction towards the
marriage expenses but cunningly after thus cheating the
informant-complainant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as
dowry; though initially before making the informant-
complainant part with Rs.5,00,000/- they allured the
informant-complainant that the marriage of the co-
accused-Manoj Kumar, son of Madan Prasad with the
daughter of the informant-complainant would be a
marriage without dowry. The further allegation is that
because of the inability of the informant-complainant to
meet the said exorbitant dowry demand, they broke the
2
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
proposed marriage but did not return the cheated amount
of ₹ 5 lakhs.
5. On the basis of Complaint Case No. 44 of 2014 of the
complainant, being referred to police under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C., police registered Khunti P.S. Case No. 130 of
2014 and took up investigation of the case. After
completion of investigation police found the allegations
made against the petitioners; who are not the named
accused persons of the case, of having committed the
offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act to be true and submitted chargesheet
against them. Basing upon the same, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khunti took cognizance of the said
offences as already indicated above.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners by relying upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Amar Nath Goswami & Ors. vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024:JHHC:3809 that in
that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of
law that when the allegations made against the accused
3
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
persons are general and omnibus in nature, such case do
not warrant prosecution.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of
Telangana & Anr. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 and
submits that therein in a case relating to the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
which offence of course, not involved in this case, it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere
reference to the names of the family members in a criminal
case arising out of matrimonial dispute without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is next submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not the
accused persons of the FIR and they have been implicated
in this case upon the completion of the investigation of the
case and no offence against the petitioners are made out.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the
petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be
allowed.
8. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the
facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
4
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
Ors. (supra) and Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State
of Telangana & Anr. (supra) because they were the cases
relating to the offences punishable under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and in this case, the marriage never
took place between the daughter of the informant-
complainant and her prospective groom; who is one of the
co-accused persons. It is next submitted by learned Spl.
P.P. that this is a clear cut case of cheating by making the
co-accused- Manoj Kumar, son of Madan Prasad pose to
be the prospective groom and with the intention of
deceiving the informant-complainant since the beginning,
deceived her and induced her so deceived to part with
Rs.5,00,000/- towards the expenses of the marriage and
thereafter by a novel idea demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as
dowry; which the petitioners knowing pretty well that the
informant-complainant is unable to meet and on that
ground breaking the proposed marriage and not returning
the cheated amount; so the offences punishable under
Sections 420 as well as Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is
submitted that there is no rhyme or reason why the prayer
of the petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed. It is, lastly, submitted that at this
nascent stage when the trial is yet to begin and the
5
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
petitioners are absconding, the entire criminal proceeding
ought not to be quashed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar
and after carefully going through the materials available
in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the
ratio of the judgments of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) and Dara Laxmi
Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (supra)
are not applicable to the facts of this case because they
were the cases relating to matrimonial dispute involving
the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code but here the marriage between the daughter of
the informant-complainant and the conman co-accused-
Manoj Kumar, son of Madan Prasad who was projected to
be as an prospective groom only for the purpose of
cheating, having the intention to deceive the informant-
complainant since the beginning, with the intention to
cheat the informant-complainant of huge sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- on the pretext of marriage expenses but
obviously with the intention not to pay back the same and
thereafter in a planned manner introducing the dowry
demand of Rs.10,00,000/- though initially they led the
informant-complainant believe that the marriage between
the co-accused-Manoj Kumar, son of Madan Prasad with
the daughter of the informant-complainant will be the
6
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016
(2026:JHHC:26306)
marriage without dowry. So, under such circumstances,
since police after investigation of the case has found the
allegations against the petitioners to the true, the details of
which obviously has been made in the case diary and
upon submission of charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance based on police
report. At this nascent stage, this Court is of the
considered view that if the allegations made remains
unrebutted offences punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners. Hence,
this court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to
the prayer of the petitioner in exercise of its power under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition
being without any merit is dismissed.
11. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated
24.03.2017 is vacated.
12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
st
Dated the 1 September, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 02/09/2026
7
Cr.M.P. No.2208 of 2016