High CourtsSingle Bench

Umesh Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 15 July 2025 · Citation: (2025) 07 JH CK 1271

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 304B, 498A · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Cr.M.P. No. 2583 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 713 words

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 604 of 2014.

3.

No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2.

4.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the deceased-Guddi Kumari and the petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the relatives of the petitioner no.1. The marriage of the deceased-daughter of the complainant took place on 13.03.2012 with the petitioner no.1. After marriage, the deceased Guddi Kumari was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner no.1 being the husband and the relatives of the petitioner no.1 being the petitioner nos.2 to 5 in connection of demand of dowry of Rs.25,000/- and even after the treatment of cruelty and harassment being meted out, as the deceased Guddi Kumari could not fulfill the dowry demand, so in the month of October, 2012, she was driven out from the house of the petitioner but after a panchayati, the deceased was again taken back to her matrimonial house, but she was murdered by the petitioners by burning her.

5.

On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the punishable under Section 498A/304B/120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and ordered for issuance of summons.

6.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing this complaint. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the death of the deceased occurred on 26.05.2013 but the complaint was filed on 13.01.2015. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and in order to harass the petitioners, this complaint has been filed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

7.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the fact remains undisputed that the death of the deceased Guddi Kumari was caused by burns and there is allegation that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioners being the husband and the relatives of the husband of the deceased for and in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.25,000/- therefore, the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code is made out besides the offences punishable under Sections 498A as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is also made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

8.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that only because there is a delay in institution of the case or setting the law in motion, when the delay is within the time period prescribed by law, certainly on that sole ground, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when otherwise, the materials on the record is sufficient to constitute the offence.

9.

In view of the settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/120B and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 604 of 2014.

10.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.