Alok Raj S/O Late Bishwanath Jaiswal @ Bishwanath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 31 years v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shiv Kumar Verma S/O Late Baijnath Ram R/O
Case Details
(2025:JHHC:34691) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2898 of 2024 ------ Alok Raj S/O Late Bishwanath Jaiswal @ Bishwanath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 31 years resident of New Colony Purainia Talab, Chatra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Charta, District Chatra … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shiv Kumar Verma S/O Late Baijnath Ram R/O Mohalla Dibha Chatra, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Charta, District Chatra … Opposite Parties For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.559 of 2024 and the cognizance order dated 25.07.2024 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner issued two cheques out of which one of Rs.6,00,000/- and the other of Rs.7,00,000/- for repayment of the loan taken by him from the complainant. The complainant presented the cheques but the same were dishonoured and 1 Cr. M.P. No.2898 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:34691) as per the cheque return memo, the said cheques were dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. The first cheque was returned on 05.04.2024 and the other cheque was returned on 09.04.2024. Notice was given to the petitioner by the complainant demanding the cheque amount through registered post. The same was replied and reply of the same was received on 21.04.2024 but the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and passed the summoning order on 25.07.2024 in Complaint Case No.559 of 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Sanha No.365 of 2013 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra alleging therein that the opposite party No.2 has stolen his bag from motorcycle containing the original papers of the land and his house, passbook of bank account including some signed cheques. The petitioner filed Complaint Case No.713 of 2022 against the complainant and others for having committed the offences punishable under Section 323, 379, 452, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint, on being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.251 of 2022 was registered. The petitioner along with one Kanti Devi filed Original Suit No.39 of 2023 against the opposite party No.2 and others for compensation regarding the damage caused to him. The complainant also filed Complaint Case No.363 of 2023 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra against the petitioner and others. 2 Cr. M.P. No.2898 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:34691) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the complaint has been filed for wrecking vengeance. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 undisputed fact remains that the two cheques belonging to the petitioner, duly signed by him, were presented in the bank and the same were dishonoured. The petitioner did not pay the cheque amount in spite of receiving the notice, demanding the payment of the cheque amount and these facts are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the only contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not issue the cheque to the complainant, is at best a defence of the petitioner, which the petitioner is free to take during the trial of the case but certainly the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 more so when the defence is not of unimpeachable character. Hence, 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 here that it is a settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person of the case and the veracity of the 3 Cr. M.P. No.2898 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:34691) evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered by the High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as that would be the job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the cheques which belonged to the petitioner and which bore the signature of the petitioner, were presented by the complainant with the Bank and the same were dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. If at all the said cheques were stolen no reason is forthcoming from the 4 Cr. M.P. No.2898 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:34691) petitioner as to why the petitioner did not intimate the bank concerned to not to honour the said cheques being the stolen cheques and to stop payment of the cheques. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer prayed for by the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of November, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 28/11/2025 5 Cr. M.P. No.2898 of 2024