(2025:JHHC:25200 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2969 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2969 of 2017 ------ Neeraj Kumar Agarwal @ Niraj Kumar Agrawal, son of Late Kalicharan Agrawal, resident of village-Kujju, New Bazar Tand, P.O.-Kujju, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Hazaribag … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kamal Agrawal, son of Kailash Chandra Agrawal, resident of village-Kujju, New Bazar Tand, P.O.-Kujju, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.- Ramgarh … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey 2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Mahto, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.327 of 2016 including the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner clandestinely took two cheque leaf from the cheque book of the complainant and by misusing the same, filled up the cheque in such a manner as if the complainant had issued the cheque of Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the (2025:JHHC:25200 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2969 of 2017 petitioner herein, who is the accused person of the case and got the said cheque presented. After the said cheque was dishonoured, the petitioner got issued a notice demanding the cheque amount to the complainant. When the complainant told the petitioner herein, that the complainant has not given any cheque to the petitioner, then the petitioner herein abused the complainant and tortured him and threatened to assault the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423, para-11 which reads as under:- “11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal intimidation” as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:- 503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section”. A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the ingredients of criminal intimidation for which punishment has been provided under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is 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 petitioner. (2025:JHHC:25200 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2969 of 2017 It is then submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the O.P. No.2/complainant filed Complaint Case No.327 of 2016 on 15.07.2016 in the concerned court of Ramgarh and complainant/O.P. No.2 has been convicted by judgment dated 29.01.2018 in complaint case No.898 of 2016 of the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh and the appeal filed by the complainant/O.P. No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2018 has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 20.07.2019. Thereafter the O.P. No.2 of the instant Cr.M.P. filed Cr. Revision No.1115 of 2019 before this court, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in view of the compromise entered into between both the parties, allowed the Cr. Revision No.1115 of 2019 by setting aside the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by appellate court in Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2018 and the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No.898 of 2016 thereby acquitting the O.P. No.2 of the instant Cr.M.P. of all the charges. Hence, it is submitted the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, hence it is submitted that the instant Cr.M.P. being without on merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar Vs. State of (2025:JHHC:25200 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2969 of 2017 Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 para-25 which reads as under;- “25.Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles 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.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied) Has discussed in detail, above the essential ingredients to constitute the office punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is no direct or specific allegation against the petitioner that the threat allegedly given by the petitioner was with intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause the complainant to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which the complainant is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.327 of 2016 including the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the (2025:JHHC:25200 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2969 of 2017 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.327 of 2016 including the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is quashed and set aside. 9. The instant Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of August, 2025 AFR/ Rohit