Shyam Narayan Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand

1. Shyam Narayan Lal, aged about 76 years, son of late Fathe Lal, resident of QN- C1B- 70, near Durga Mandir, Demonstrator Colony, Birsa Agricultural University, PO & PS - Kanke, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834006.

2. Chandrachur Prasad @ Chandra Choor Prasad, aged about 65 years, son of late Shrikrishna Prasad, resident of C-3, Tara Tower, Exhibition Road, Behind Hotel Republic, Exhibition Road, PO - G.P.O. Patna, PS - Gandhi Maidan, District - Patna, Bihar, 800001.

3. Anuradha Devi, aged about 66 years, wife of Shyam Narayan Lal, Resident of QN - C 1B - 70, near Durga Mandir, Demonstrator Colony, Birsa Agricultural University, PO & PS - Kanke, District-

Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834006. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Surabhi Supriya, aged about 37 years, wife of Rajesh Kumar, Daughter of Prabhakar Prasad Sinha, Resident - Road No. 6, Behind Usha Tent House Ayodhyapuri, Lower Chutia, Chutia, PO & PS - Chutia, District - Ranchi, 834001.

... ... Opp. Parties ------

For the Petitioners : Md. Imran Beig, Advocate : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the Opp. P. No. 2 : None

------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- I.A. No. 15908 of 2025

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for early hearing of

this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

1 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025

(2025:JHHC:36681)

Since hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up

today, hence, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of being

infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Cr. M.P. No. 2348 of 2025

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the Opposite Party

No. 2, but 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 the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the prayer to quash the FIR being Chutia

P.S. Case No. 114 of 2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising

out of the said FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 85

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which is currently pending before

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi,

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

investigation of the case is still going on and the chargesheet has not yet

been submitted. He further submits that the allegation against the

petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 being Father-in-Law, petitioner no.

2 being maternal uncle of the husband of the informant and the petitioner

no. 3 being mother-in-law of the informant, were exhorting husband of

the informant and thereby causing cruelty to the informant.

2 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025

(2025:JHHC:36681)

5. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is

general and omnibus in nature and the main allegation is against the

husband of the informant who is not a petitioner before this Court. It is

then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false and

even though the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be

true in their entirety, still no offence punishable under Section 85 of the

BNS, is made out. He further submits that there is no allegation of

demand of dowry nor any coercion made by the petitioners to fulfil any

unlawful demand.

6. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 it is further submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the litigant's bounden

duty to make a full and true disclosure of the fact. It is then submitted

that it is trite law that suppression of material facts before a Court

amount to an abuse of process of Court and shall be dealt with a heavy

hand and in this case the informant has suppressed the material fact that

she earlier filed Complaint Case No. 15599 of 2025 in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate, Ranchi and also instituted a FIR being Dhurwa P.S. Case No.

124 of 2024 against the petitioners for the selfsame occurrence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil

Agrawal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC

3 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36681)

524 wherein in Paragraph No. 18, it was observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India that if it is found that subsequent FIR is an abuse

to the process of law and / or the same has been lodged only to harass

the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India or in exercise of the power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Digambar &

Another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2024) SCC

OnLine SC 3836, Paragraph No. 23 of which reads as under:-

"23. Hence, it was clear that 'cruelty' is not enough to constitute the offence. It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of any such allegations. The only allegation that referred to an injury being inflicted against the complainant is a vague statement that the son of the appellants herein used to beat her, but there is no specific allegation of any such injury being caused by the appellants herein."

and submits that as in this case, there is no allegation that anything

was done by the petitioners with an intention to cause / inflict grave

injury or abet the victim to commit suicide, hence, the same will not

amount to cruelty under Section 86(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal

miscellaneous petition, be allowed.

9. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand has vehemently opposed the

prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the allegations made in the

FIR is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 85 of

4 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36681)

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sajhita against the petitioners as well. Hence, it is

submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any

merit, be dismissed.

10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going

through the materials available on record, it is pertinent to mention here

that cruelty has been defined under Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, which reads as under:-

"86. Cruelty defined.--For the purposes of Section 85, "cruelty"

means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

11. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is no allegation of any

wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the informant to

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health

(whether mental or physical) of the informant.

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that

if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be

true in their entirety, still the offence of cruelty as defined under Section

86(a) of BNS, 2023 is not made out. So far as the definition of cruelty as

has been mentioned in Section 86 (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

is concerned to constitute the said cruelty, harassment of the woman has

5 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36681)

to be with a view to coerce her as a person related to meet any unlawful

demand etc..

13. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is no allegation of any

unlawful demand made by the petitioners and in the absence of the same,

the entire allegations made against the petitioners even if are considered

to be true, still cruelty as defined under Section 86(b) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not made out.

14. In view of the discussions made above, as even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their

entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not made out against the petitioners, hence, this

Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of the criminal

proceeding will amount to an abuse to the process of law, therefore, this

is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chutia P.S.

Case No. 114 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section

85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be quashed and set aside qua the

petitioners.

15. Therefore, entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chutia P.S.

Case No. 114 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section

85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is quashed and set aside qua the

petitioners.

6 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025

(2025:JHHC:36681)

16. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02nd December 2025 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - 15/12/2025

7 Cr. M. P. No. 2348 of 2025