Ajmul Ansari @ Azimul Ansari @ Azmul Ansari, aged about 32 years, S/o Nizam v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
(2025:JHHC:36241) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2925 of 2023 ------ Ajmul Ansari @ Azimul Ansari @ Azmul Ansari, aged about 32 years, S/o Nizam Mian, R/o village – New Colony, Muraidih, P.O. – Pochari, P.S. – Barora, District- Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in connection with G.R. Case No.3218 of 2022 arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.76 of 2022 and to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the said case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, was assisting in concealment of stolen property of coal, the theft of which was committed from the B.C.C.L. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, police registered Katras P.S. Case No.76 of 2022 and took up the investigation of the case. Aafter completion of the investigation police found the allegations against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable 1 Cr. M.P. No.2925 of 2023 (2025:JHHC:36241) under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the charge-sheet submitted in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not yet been framed. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that there is no material in the record to suggest that theft of coal has been committed. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that it is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, some other person must be traced out and convicted for the offence of committing theft. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being involved in assisting concealment of stolen property and the contention of the petitioner that the allegations against him are false, is the defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2 Cr. M.P. No.2925 of 2023 (2025:JHHC:36241) Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was involved in assisting the concealment of stolen property of coal from B.C.C.L. It is a settled principle of law has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajendranath vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code that some other person must be traced out and convicted for the offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to prove that the property recovered is stolen property and that the accused extended help in concealment and disposal of the same. 7. The undisputed fact remains that the stolen property of one ton of crude coal has been recovered, is the stolen property of B.C.C.L. There is allegation against the petitioner of extending help in concealment and disposal of the said stolen property. 8. 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 evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the High Court; as that would be the job of the trial court, as has 3 Cr. M.P. No.2925 of 2023 (2025:JHHC:36241) 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. 9. 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) 10. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety then the offence punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The contention of the petitioner that the allegations against him are false, is a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the 4 Cr. M.P. No.2925 of 2023 (2025:JHHC:36241) petitioner in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03rd of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 10/12/2025 5 Cr. M.P. No.2925 of 2023