[2025:JHHC:25965] 1 Cr. M.P. No.3011 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2018 ------ Rajendra Modi, aged about 62 years son of Late Rameshwar Modi resident of village Masnodih Modi Mica, Gumo, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Mr. Singi S. Demta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, 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 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.54 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 inter alia against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, contrary to the prohibition under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, was involved in the business of excavating and transporting mica from the protected forest [2025:JHHC:25965] 2 Cr. M.P. No.3011 of 2018 area. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the complainant, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above by the said impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and fabricated. It is next submitted that the materials available in the record are inadequate to array the petitioner as an accused in the said case. It is next submitted that Modi Mica Enterprises has been granted licence by the competent authority to run a factory by the Factory Inspection Department of the Government of Jharkhand. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has committed the offence of carrying of stones from the protected forest area, contrary to the prohibition therefor contained in Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in taking cognizance of the said offences as already mentioned above, on the basis of the prosecution report. It is, therefore, submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth [2025:JHHC:25965] 3 Cr. M.P. No.3011 of 2018 by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court, as that would be 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. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the an accused person of a case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces its evidence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, para-11 of which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) [2025:JHHC:25965] 4 Cr. M.P. No.3011 of 2018 9. In view of the discussions made above; since the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner is false, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.54 of 2017 in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.6220 of 2020 is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj