Jharkhand High Court
Mamta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:5314 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2573 of 2024
------
Mamta Devi, aged about 40 years, wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh, daughter of Dilip Kumar Singh, resident of Gram Godabali, P.O. & P.S.-Balidih, District-Bokaro.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Deo Nandan Singh, resident of Village-Katka, P.O. & P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S Dayal, Advocate
: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Nirupama, Advocate
: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision 1 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) No.133 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro has allowed the criminal revision and allowed the petition filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharging from the case and acquitted the opposite party and discharged the opposite party no.2 in Complaint Case No.96 of 2019.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.96 of 2019 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the learned Judicial Magistrate to which Court the case was transferred, on the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A & 323 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the opposite party no.2 who is the husband of the petitioner as well as Dev Nandan Singh, Geeta Devi and Loknath Singh @ Banerjee Singh. The opposite party no.2 filed a petition under Section 239 of CrPC in the Court of SDJM, Bokaro to which Court, the case was subsequently transferred, contending therein that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the petitioner has been paid Rs.6 lakhs as one time permanent alimony by the opposite party no.2. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of divorce passed in O.S. Case No.486 of 2018 dated 23.11.2022 by the Family Court, Bokaro has been dismissed by the High 2 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) Court. The two children of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are residing with the family members of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 and his son have made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro for unwanted intervention in the studies of his son and the matter was forwarded to Child Welfare Committee, Bokaro and the custody of the son of the opposite party no.2 has been handed over to the father of the opposite party no.2. The learned SDJM, Bokaro considered that the contention raised by the petitioner is subject matter of trial and rejected the petition under Section 239 of CrPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No.133 of 2023 which was heard and allowed vide order dated 26.06.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro considered that the undisputed facts remains that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has been dissolved by the decree of divorce and the appeal filed against the same has been dismissed by the High Court. There was no material placed before the Revisional Court to suggest that the dismissal order of the appeal passed by the High Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned Revisional Court considered the evidence before charge in the Court in which the complainant has not stated anything against the opposite party no.2 of having committing any act or omission to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498A & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, though the petitioner has stated that Rs.2 lakhs were demanded and for that maar- 3 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) pit was done but she has not stated specifically as to who out of several accused person of the case demanded Rs.2 lakhs and who did the maar-pit to her. The petitioner has further stated that on 29.08.2015, she was sent to the ancestral village of the opposite party no.2 at Katka and was left alone there. The opposite party no.2 and his parents kept the children born out of the wedlock of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner. There is allegation against the other accused persons of tormenting the complainant at Katka. On the basis of the materials available in the record, the learned Revisional Court came to the conclusion that there is insufficient material to frame charges against the opposite party no.2 of this Cr.M.P. who was the petitioner before the revisional court and allowed the petition under Section 239 of CrPC and discharged the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discharge petition was filed under Section 245 of CrPC, though in the discharge petition, the same had erroneously been mentioned as a petition for discharge under Section 239 of CrPC. It is next submitted that the learned SDJM, Bokaro vide its order dated 17.04.2023 has rightly rejected the petition filed under Section 245 of CrPC to discharge the opposite party no.2 but the learned revisional court committed a grave illegally by failing to take into consideration the fact that the opposite party no.2 has driven out the petitioner from her matrimonial house. It is next submitted that the Hon'ble High Court and the learned Family Court granted the divorce to the opposite party no.2 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the 4 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) petitioner without establishing that the petitioner's actions made a legal threshold for cruelty, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the learned SDJM, Bokaro while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 245(1) of CrPC ought to have considered that the evidence recorded under Section 244 of CrPC would go to show that there is absolutely no allegation against the opposite party no.2, direct and specific, which is required to establish the offence punishable under any penal provision of law against the accused person of the case. It is next submitted that true it is, that in the evidence put forth by the complainant before charge under Section 244 of CrPC, the petitioner/complainant has stated that she was assaulted, maar-pit was done, money was demanded but she has not specifically stated that who did the maar-pit and who demanded the money and in the absence of the same, the learned SDJM, Bokaro ought to have discharged the opposite party no.2, but having not done so, still illegally rejecting the application under Section 245 (1) of CrPC, the provision of law, of course, which was erroneously been mentioned as petition under Section 239 of CrPC, hence, the opposite party no.2 preferred the criminal revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro has rightly set right the error committed by the learned SDJM, Bokaro in rejecting the application under Section 245(1) of CrPC as 5 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) there was absolutely no evidence referred to in Section 244 of CrPC which could have made out any of the offences punishable in law against the petitioner; which was sine qua non to frame charges there. It is next submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro and though, it has been contended by the petitioner inter alia that this Court has granted divorce to the opposite party no.2 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the petitioner without the petitioner's actions meeting the legal threshold for cruelty but such an opinion could not have been formed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro, being a court sub-ordinate to this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. 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 that Section 244(1) of CrPC mandates that the Magistrate in any warrant case instituted otherwise there on a police report shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and Section 245(1) of CrPC makes it abundantly clear that if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244 of CrPC, the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out if unrebutted, it would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case as already indicated above in her evidence before charge, the petitioner has not stated a single sentence 6 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) which will implicate the opposite party no.2 in the alleged offence and she has stated of Rs.2 lakhs being demanded and for that maar-pit was done with her, but nowhere she has specifically stated that the maar-pit has ever been done by the opposite party no.2 or the opposite party no.2 has demanded any money rather she has stated that on 29.08.2015 she was sent to the ancestral house of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 was not coming to the ancestral house. This goes to show that at least from 29.08.2015 as per the statement of the petitioner, she was leaving separately from the opposite party no.2 and she had no occasion to meet the opposite party no.2 from 29.08.2015 and the Complaint Case No.96 of 2019 was instituted on 22.01.2019. Therefore, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro upon taking into consideration all the evidence recorded under Section 244 of CrPC came to the conclusion that no case against the opposite party no.2 of this Cr.M.P. is made out even if the evidence recorded under Section 244 of CrPC is left unrebutted, so she has allowed the petition under Section 245(1) of CrPC and discharged the accused person.
9. This Court after going through the materials available in the record is satisfied that the evidence which put forth under Section 244 of CrPC by the petitioner- who was the complainant in the said complaint case, even if the same is unrebutted, the same would not warrant the conviction of the opposite party no.2; as there is no direct and specific allegation against the opposite party no.2 of committing any offence punishable under law, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the 7 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:5314 ) absence of any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro, there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of February, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 28/02/2026 8 Cr. M.P. No.2573 of 2024