REENA SAHU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:19079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 522 of 2022
--------
1. Reena Sahu, aged about 43 years, daughter of Awadesh Prasad Gupta,
wife of Ravindra Kumar Shaw, residing near Hanuman Mandir,
Gandhi Nagar, Dhanbad, Post-Dhanbad, Police Station-Dhanbad,
District-Dhanbad
2. Ms. Neha Kashyap, aged about 39 years, daughter of Awadesh Prasad
Gupta, wife of Nand Gupta, residing near Ashok Cinema, Aarti Kunj,
Ranchi Road, Ramgah, Marar, Post-Ramgarh, Police Station-
Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shivani Kumari, wife of Ritesh Ranjan, presently rediding at B1,
Type, 3 AMD, residential complex, Khasmahal, Charkhambha, Post-
Golmuri, Police Station-Parsudih, District-East Singhbhum
… … Opp. Parties
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
Mr. Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No.2 : Mr. Ripunjay Jha, Advocate
--------

C.A.V. on 11.06.2026 Pronounced on 30/06/2026

1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned A.P.P.
for the State and Mr. Ripunjay Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party No.2.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated
18.05.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.563/2022 in S.T.
Case No. 258 of 2022 passed by learned A.J.C.-XV-cum-F.T.C.
(C.A.W.), Ranchi whereby and whereunder the application under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioners from the
charges leveled against them has been rejected.

2026:JHHC:19079

Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision as per written report of
the informant Shivani Kumari is that she was married on 26.11.2014 in
accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs with Ritesh Ranjan @
Ranjeet. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, her husband was
running a business of coal transportation by his own two dumpers and
he was also owning two houses and rent from shops. It is alleged that at
the time of her marriage, her father has given as per demand of in-laws
and husband Rs.11,00,000/- cash, jewellery worth Rs.5,00,000/- and
other household utensils like Freeze, T.V., Furniture, Kitchen utensils
etc. It is alleged that when she joined her matrimonial home after
marriage, her mother-in-law Lila Devi and both sisters-in-law Reena
Sahu @ Arti and Neha Kachhap @ Guddi were not satisfied with the
dowry given at the time of marriage and started saying that your father
is very rich person and running 10-12 trucks and also owner of factory,
but he has given nothing and cheated them. They were also using
indecent language against her and frequently tormenting. It is further
alleged that after ten days of marriage, she along with her husband went
for honeymoon at different places in Rajasthan, Punjab, Delhi, Kashmir
etc. In the course of that trip also her husband asked the informant that
his dumper has become old and asked to bring a dumper from her
father. Due to this reason, some scuffle took place with her husband and
her trip of honeymoon was spoiled. Her husband used to abuse her on
instigation of her mother and sisters. It is further alleged that after

2

2026:JHHC:19079

returning from honeymoon, informant became pregnant, which was
also objected by her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. She was put over
burdened by household domestic works and the maid servant was also
removed. Due to heavy workload from morning to night, her health
started deteriorating. She met with a lady doctor, who advised for
complete rest, otherwise delivery would be caesarean. Due to high
medical expenses also, her husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law
started taunting her, then her father took Vidai and brought her at
Ranchi, where she gave birth to a female child on 04.09.2015 at Hill
View Nursing Home. It is alleged that on 05.09.2015, her mother-in-
law, husband and Mami Saas came to visit at hospital and again taunted
her for giving birth to a female child. She again went to her
matrimonial home after Deepawali, but again demand for dumper and
harassment and torture both physical and mental due to birth of a
female child was continued. Again, she was put under heavy workload
and she has to take care of her daughter also. In spite of that, she was
abused and assaulted by her mother-in-law by catching her hair. It is
further alleged that informant’s father-in-law was already paralyzed and
his both daughters were claiming share in his property and scuffling
with him. In the meantime, her husband left the informant at her
parental home directing her to bring dumper from her father. On
occasion of death of her father-in-law on 25.03.2016, she went to her
matrimonial home, but she was subjected to torture due to non-
fulfillment of the demand of the accused persons. At that time, she was

3

2026:JHHC:19079

pregnant and some medicine was administered to her by her husband
and mother-in-law and she was also physically assaulted, due to which
her pregnancy was terminated. Again, she was brought to her parental
home on 22.07.2017 due to her illness, and since then, she is residing at
her paternal home. Again, she was directed by her husband to bring
dumper, while returning otherwise there is no necessity to come back.
4. On the basis of above information, an F.I.R. being Sukhdeo
Nagar P.S. Case No. 612 of 2018 was registered for the offence under
Sections 498A/313/34 of the I.P.C. against above named four accused
persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
submitted against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections
498A, 313/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of
Session, where S.T. Case No. 258 of 2022 has been registered.
5. The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. for discharge, which has been rejected and the same has been
assailed in this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the
petitioners are married sisters-in-law of the informant, who were
married prior to a decade of the solemnization of the marriage of the
informant with their brother Ritesh Ranjan @ Ranjeet. It is further
submitted that the main witness in this case is the informant herself and
in the F.I.R. itself, she has stated nothing against the petitioners except
some general and omnibus allegations that these petitioners were

4

2026:JHHC:19079

instigating her brother for bringing new dumpers by his wife from her
father. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 was married on
02.05.2004 and since then she is residing with her husband at Dhanbad
and was working as Assistant Teacher at Kids Paradise Public School,
New Colony, Duhatand and at present working as T.G.T. at Dr. J.C.
Sinha Memorial School at Nawadih, Dhanbad. Similarly, petitioner
No.2 was married on 02.06.2013 and since her marriage, she is residing
with her husband at Greater Noida and is working as Assistant
Professor in B.Tech (CSE) in JIMS Engineering Management Technical
Campus. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have no
concern with any matrimonial dispute between informant, her in-laws
and husband. The allegation of demand of dumper for the first time is
alleged to be raised by husband of the informant, while they were on
honeymoon trip at different places in India. There was no occasion to
the petitioners to live at their parental home to quarrel with the
informant or demand anything much less, the dumper which is of no
use for them. It is admitted by informant that her father-in-law is a rich
person and as such there is no occasion to ask one dumper from the
informant. It is out and out a case of roping falsely all the family
members including the married sisters-in-law, who are in service and
working at difference place only with a view to harass and humiliate
them. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
properly consider the overall materials collected during investigation in
the light of averments in the first information report. The informant

5

2026:JHHC:19079

herself has not mentioned any instances of cruelty against the
petitioners constituting the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
Therefore, no question of corroboration from any other hearsay
witnesses, interrogated during investigation, ever arises. It is the
bounden duty of the learned Trial Court to consider all the materials
collected during investigation as well as document submitted therewith
and record findings about sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. It is further submitted that for framing charge against the
accused persons under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Judge is required to
express his opinion after considering the materials and hearing the
parties that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is
further submitted that the impugned order itself reveals as observed at
Page No.9 as under:-
“All the witnesses examined during investigation have fully
supported and corroborated the allegations made against also
these two petitioners, although the informant/victim has not
specifically stated regarding abortion (termination of pregnancy)
against these petitioners but she and all the witnesses have fully
supported about other offences and there are sufficient materials
to frame charge also against these petitioners and therefore, this
case requires trial.”
7. The aforesaid observation clearly indicates that no material has
been collected against the petitioners showing a prima facie case for

6

2026:JHHC:19079

proceeding against them for an offence exclusively triable by Court of
Session due to specific observation that offence under Section 313 of
the I.P.C. does not attract against the petitioners due to lack of evidence
against them. Therefore, instead of proceeding further in the matter, the
case might have been remitted back to the concerned Trial Court under
Section 228(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order requires
interference in this revision and impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State controverting the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners has submitted
that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials collected
during investigation against the petitioners and after detailed discussion
has arrived at subjective satisfaction that sufficient materials are
collected against the petitioners for further proceeding and framing
charge against the petitioners for the alleged offences. At this stage of
the proceedings, roving enquiry like a mini trial, going into the question
of truth or falsity of allegation and sufficiency of evidence for the
conviction of the accused persons is not required. Therefore, this
revision is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
9. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears from the impugned
order as well as the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the
F.I.R. by the victim lady, who is sufferer of the alleged occurrence and
star witness of this case, she has filed a written report with all
allegations containing in three pages which is centered around against

7

2026:JHHC:19079

her husband and in-laws. Admittedly, the petitioners are married sisters-
in-law, who were married in the year 2004 and 2013, respectively and
the informant was married in the year 2016. Both the petitioners are
working lady and residing at different place even prior to the
solemnization of marriage of the informant. It is also on record that the
informant has given birth to a female child and her second pregnancy
was terminated by insufficient medical support and also due to exertion
of work, deterioration of health and abuse and assault by her husband
and mother-in-law as stated in the F.I.R. There is no whisper against the
present petitioners showing any overt act for constituting offence under
Section 313 of the I.P.C. against them, which is exclusively triable by
Court of Session. So far other allegations although, general in terms
alleged against the petitioners are constituting only offence under
st
Section 498A of the I.P.C. triable by Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class.
10. It is trite that at the time of opening of the prosecution case and
hearing on discharge or framing charge against the accused, the learned
Trial Judge has to consider all the materials collected during
investigation, albeit at this stage, disputed question of facts raised by
defence may not be considered, but a reasoned order is required to be
passed regarding sufficiency of ground for further proceeding for the
proposed charges or for presuming on the basis of materials that the
accused has committed the offence exclusively triable by the Court of
Session under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.
11. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial

8

2026:JHHC:19079

Court has miserably failed to record any reasons as required under law
as stated above and rejected the application of the petitioners, therefore,
impugned order is not legal, proper and justified under law, which is
hereby set aside and this revision is allowed .
12. Learned Trial Court is directed to rehear the parties affording
reasonable opportunity without granting unnecessary adjournments and
pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid
observations.
13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for
information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 30/06/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 01/07/2026



9