(2025:JHHC:24519) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2558 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2558 of 2019 ------ Satyanandan Prasad aged about 36 years, Son of R.N. Prasad resident of vill- Plot No.258, Bari Co-oprative, P.O. + P.S.- Sector 12 B.S. City Dist- Bokaro … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Beby Kumari aged about wife of Hari Mohan Sharma resident of vill- Plot No.259, Bari Co-oprative, P.O. + P.S.- Sector 12 B.S. City Dist- Bokaro … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Chandra Pd. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, 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, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.432 of 2018 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.04.2018, the petitioner outraged the modesty of the complainant by pulling her hand and forcing her to sit on the pillion of the scooty which the petitioner was riding, after abusing her with obscene words and on earlier occasions also, the petitioner was involved in stalking. Besides the hand of the complainant, the petitioner (2025:JHHC:24519) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2558 of 2019 touched the other parts of the body of the complainant also. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summon to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 19 days in institution of the complaint. It is further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant vis-à- vis the complaint. It is then submitted that the petitioner lodged Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.11 of 2018 against the father of the complainant, hence, as a counter-blast, this case has been falsely foisted against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of outraging the modesty of the complainant by inappropriately touching on various parts of the body of the complainant and besides pulling her hand and forcing her to sit on the pillion of the scooty, which the petitioner was riding against the wish of the complainant after uttering obscene words to her, so, the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the delay in institution of the complaint is well explained (2025:JHHC:24519) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2558 of 2019 as the complainant first approached the police but as the police did not take any action then only the complainant filed the complaint petition. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of outraging the modesty of the complainant by inappropriately touching various parts of her body after uttering obscene words to her and pulling her hand and make her to sit on the pillion of the scooty which the petitioner was riding, against her wish. This allegation, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner 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 by the High Court 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 & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against him is false and the same can only be tested in a (2025:JHHC:24519) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2558 of 2019 full-dress trial of the case. So far as the contention of the petitioner that there is a delay of 19 days in institution of the complaint is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that mere delay in institution of a complaint by 19 days cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.3735 of 2023 stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh