Jharkhand High Court
Md. Qummar Islam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:21995)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2261 of 2020
Md. Qummar Islam, aged about 39 years, s/o Md. Sikandar Ali, r/o
Village-Choti Kodarjanna, P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (T), Dist.-
Sahibganj, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nemat Azad, d/o Seikh Azad, r/o Village- Choti Kodarjanna, P.O.-
Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (T), Dist.-Sahibganj, Jharkhand
Residing at : Village-Sukhari, P.O. & P.S.-Meharma, Dist.-Godda,
Jharkhand
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, GP I
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 entire criminal proceeding initiated against
the petitioner including the FIR as also the order dated 14.09.2023
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, in
connection with Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019, whereby and
where under, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Godda on the basis of the charge sheet
submitted against the petitioner by the police upon completion of
1
Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020
(2026:JHHC:21995)the investigation of the case for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 379 and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Though a lawyer has put in appearance on behalf of 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 petitioner is that the petitioner being
the husband of the informant took dowry at the time of marriage
by the informant of Rs.3,70,000/- and subsequent to the marriage
also demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and because of non-
fulfilment of the dowry demand harassed the informant by
causing hurt to her, by assaulting her, intentionally insulted her to
provoke her to commit breach of peace and other offences,
committed theft of the articles of the informant and also
committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly
misappropriating the property entrusted to the petitioner.
5. Basing upon the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Maharma P.S. Case No. 198 of 2019 and took up
investigation of the case. After completion of investigation police
found all the allegations made against the petitioner to be true and
submitted charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the
offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda and basing upon the same,
2
Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020
(2026:JHHC:21995)
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has taken cognizance
of the offences as already indicated above.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is delay in
registration of the FIR. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that both the parties have settled their
dispute and, in this regard, a petition under Section 321 of Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed by the informant on 24.06.2020,
the same was kept in the record but even then, the cognizance
order was passed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed
for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be
allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner and drawing attention of this
Court to Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submits
that under the said provision of law, the Public Prosecutor or the
Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, may with the
consent of the Court at any time before the judgment pronounced,
withdraw from the prosecution but certainly, the informant is not
entitled to file a petition under Section 321 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, so admittedly, the petition under Section 321 of Code
of Criminal Procedure having not been filed either by the Public
Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has not committed any error by not
passing any order on such application; as the application was not
3
Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020
(2026:JHHC:21995)
commensurate with the requirement of Section 321 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the State that the undisputed fact remains that the offence
made against the petitioner as mentioned in the FIR, case dairy
and the charge sheet is sufficient to constitute each of the offences
which is found to be true by the police during the investigation of
the case and in respect of which police has submitted charge sheet
and basing upon the charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Godda has taken cognizance of the offences. Hence, it is
submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, the
undisputed fact remains that the allegations made in the FIR, the
materials which has been collected by the police during the
investigation of the case as mentioned in the case diary and the
charge sheet if considered to be true in its entirety then each of the
offences in respect of which police has submitted charge sheet and
basing upon which, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda
has taken cognizance is in fact being made out.
9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Godda has failed to consider the petition
purportedly filed under Section 321 of Code of Criminal
Procedure by a private person being the informant is concerned, it
is needless to mention that under Section 341 of Code of Criminal
4
Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020
(2026:JHHC:21995)
Procedure withdrawal of the prosecution can only be done by the
Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of
a case albeit with the consent of the Court but certainly, the same
does not empower the informant to withdraw the prosecution for
non-compoundable offences.
10. Under such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Godda having not acted upon the application under Section
321 of Code of Criminal Procedure which was not filed by a
person competent to file such petition, this Court do not find any
illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Godda in taking the cognizance based on the charge sheet
by the police in the case; warranting interference of this Court in
exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure by acceding to the prayer of the petitioner made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 24th July, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 27/07/2026
5
Cr.M.P. No.2261 of 2020
