1. Uttam Kumar Mahato @ Uttam Kumar aged about 52 years son of Bhuwaneshwar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tilakdhari Mahato @ Nimai Mahato son of Harkhu
Case Details
(2025:JHHC:36808) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.324 of 2025 ------ 1. Uttam Kumar Mahato @ Uttam Kumar aged about 52 years son of Bhuwaneshwar @ Bhuneshwar Mahto, resident of village Solagidih, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro 2. Mohammad Farid @ Md. Farid aged about 57 years son of late Abdul Hamid, resident of village Muslim Mohalla, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tilakdhari Mahato @ Nimai Mahato son of Harkhu Mahato, resident of Chira Chas, near Hari mandir, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro. 3. Ganesh Chandra Mahato. 4. Anand Mahato both sons of Dayal Mahato Both resident of village- Jainamore, Rajwar Side, Bermo Road, Bandhdih, P.O. and P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro. 5. Jiten Mahato son of Dayal Mahato, resident of village Chira Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro. 6. Dhananjay Mahato @ Dhanajay Mahto, son of Harkhu Mahato, resident of Chira Chas near Hari Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Chas, Opposite Parties District- Bokaro … For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. Nos.2 to 6 ------
Legal Reasoning
statement of the enquiry witnesses, found prima facie case in respect of the offences as already indicated above. 2 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of the property nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of any criminal intimidation or intentional insult to the complainant. Further, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt or wrongfully restraining nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of cheating the complainant or anyone else. Further, there is no allegation of commission of any mischief by either of the petitioners. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is also submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has received Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners towards advance for selling his land and this case has been falsely foisted against the petitioners to harass and to misappropriate the advance amount given by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the dispute, at best, may give rise to a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Add. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the 3 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 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 here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that there must be entrustment and there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction or obtaining legal possession; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of entrustment of any property and in the absence of the same, the question of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property does not arise and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. 4 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of which read as under:- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant’s house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” intimidation, the principles A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (emphasis supplied) had the occasion to consider the ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having intentionally insulted the complainant nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of giving any provocation to the complainant, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break public peace and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they gave any threat with intent to cause alarm to the complainant; or to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do, as a means of avoiding the execution of the threat. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of 6 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) causing hurt to the complainant or anyone else. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i) the accused obstructed a person; (ii) he did it voluntarily; (iii) he prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he has the right to proceed. 15. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of obstructing the complainant or anyone else, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as follows:- (i) the accused voluntarily or dishonestly induced the complainant (ii) he did so for delivery of some property either to the accused or some other person (iii) he intentionally induced the complainant to do a thing which he would not do or omit to do a thing which he would have done if not induced (iv) such act was likely to cause some damage or harm to his body, mind, reputation or property. 7 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) 17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of voluntarily or dishonestly inducing the complainant for delivery of some property. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) the accused caused the destruction of some property or some change in it or its situation; (ii) such change must have destroyed or diminished the value or utility of the property or affected it injuriously (iii) such destruction or change in property or situation thereof must have been done with intention of causing or with knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or to public (iv) such mischief caused loss or damage amounting to not less than Rs.50/- as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1972 SC 665. 19. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing any destruction to any property or making any change in it or in its situation and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 8 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) 20. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found against the petitioners is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.646 of 2021, be quashed and set aside. 21. Accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.646 of 2021, is quashed and set aside. 22.
Arguments
: Mr. Nitish Kr. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. (Through V.C.) : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 1 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:36808) 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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.646 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 504, 323, 341, 417, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is at the stage of appearance and charge has not yet been framed by the trial court. 4. The brief fact of the case is that ten years prior to recording of the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant on 04.10.2021, in the year 2010, the petitioners paid Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners have further got the work started on the land. When the complainant asked for paying the remaining money, the petitioners told him to go anywhere he wishes and nothing will happen. It is alleged that on 05.07.2021, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant, abused him and told him that he has to give the land to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro basing on the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 15/12/2025 9 Cr. M.P. No.324 of 2025