(2025:JHHC:23067) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2879 of 2018 ------ 1. Dead 2. Dead 3. Saraswati Devi, aged about 50 years wife of Kamlesh Lohar 4. Chanchala Kumari, aged about 18 years; 5. Veena Kumari, aged about 30 years; 6. Anumta Kumari, aged about 22 years; 7. Urjala Kumari, aged about 25 years; All are daughters of Kamlesh Lohar 8. Shivnath Lohar, aged about 15 years, Son of Kamlesh Lohar; Nos. 1 to 8 are resident of village-Chandandih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu; Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 9. Manohar Prajapati, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Baijnath Prajapati, Resident of Village Pathakdih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 10. Rakhal Munda, aged about 51 years, son of Kartik Munda, R/o Marnadih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kaleshwar Mahto, son of late Mohan Mahto, resident of village Manjhidih, P.O. Rahe, P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shweta Suman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY (2025:JHHC:23067) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2018 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 proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.03.2018 passed in Complaint Case no.4208 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the learned J.M., Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 14.08.2024 and submits that petitioner no.1 namely, Kamlesh Lohar @ Karam Lohar and petitioner no.2, namely, Gangamani Devi have died, hence in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P is dismissed in respect of petitioner nos.1 and 2. 4. So far as the petitioner nos.3 to 10 are concerned the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners committed theft of the planted paddy crops of the complainant by cutting and taking paddy crops. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioner nos.3 to 10 is false and petitioner nos. 3 to 10 are the owner of the property, hence the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. may 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 opposes the prayer and submit that the O.P. No.2 complainant is the owner of the property, hence (2025:JHHC:23067) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2018 all the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate. is in fact made against the petitioner nos.3 to 10. Hence it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made in the bar and after going through the materials available on the records, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that where the question of possession of the land and crop on the date of occurrence is a matter of considerable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted for having committed theft of crop as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Ekbal Rai & Ors. Vs. Jaldhari Pandey reported in AIR 1972 SC 949. It is also settled principle that where a Bonafide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar & Ors. Vs. Abanidhar Roy reported in AIR 1965 SC 585 as also in the case of Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao & Anr. Vs. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana & Anr. reported in AIR 1962 SC 586. 7. Now coming to the fact of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner nos.3 to 10 claim legal right to cut crop. Under such circumstances, in view of settled principle of law, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner nos.3 to 10 are considered to be true in its entirety still no offence is made out against the petitioner nos.3 to 10. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner nos.3 to 10 will amount to abuse of process (2025:JHHC:23067) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2018 of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.03.2018 passed in Complaint Case no.4208 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, as prayed for by the petitioner nos.3 to 10, be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 14.03.2018 passed in Complaint Case no.4208 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.3 to 10. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of August, 2025 AFR/ Rohit