2025:JHHC:15590 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 350 of 2025 ------ 1. Prahalad Singh @ Prahlad Kumar Singh @ Chhotu Singh, son of Girish Singh, resident of Ward No. 3, Rohni P.O Rohni, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 2. Shailendra Singh @ Shaildendra Kumar son of Late Kailash Singh, resident of New Kunda Karmibagh, P.O Kunda, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, at present Ward No. 3, Rohini, Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 3. Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar (Advocate son of Krishna Singh, Tundi Road Baswadih, P.O Jasidih, P.S. Giridih(m), District- Giridih A/P Ward No. 3, Rohini, Jasidih, Deoghar. ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar. 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jasidih, Deoghar. 5. The Officer-in-Charge Jasidih, Deoghar. 6. Bablu Singh @ Vijay Krishn Manav, son of Bal Krisihn Amanav, Resident of Mohalla Rohini, Ward No. 3, Jasidih, Deoghar. ….Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA …..... 7/13.06.2025: Heard the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to set aside Jasidih P.S. Case No. 272 of 2024 lodged for the alleged offence under Sections 115(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023, which is pending before the Court of learned ACJM, Deoghar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is civil in nature and thus the FIR needs to be quashed. He further submits that the person who was constructing the wall is also not known. The FIR can be quashed if no criminal offence is made out. If any criminal offence under the criminal law is made out, the FIR cannot be quashed and the same needs to be investigated. After hearing the parties, when I go through the FIR, I find that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have assaulted the informant with a rod. This allegation definitely makes out a criminal offence to be tried in a criminal court if it is found to be correct during course of investigation. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be said to be absolutely civil in nature. Thus, I find no ground to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this wit petition is dismissed. Anu/-Cp3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)