( 2025:JHHC:18414 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2184 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2184 of 2017 ------ Manish Kumar @ Manish Sharma son of Ramjanam Sharma, resident of New Colony Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, P.O. & District Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Ujjawal Choudhary @ Ujjawal Kumar Choudhary, son of Sunil Choudhary, resident of Sidhivinayak residency Flat No.203/C Saraidhela, P.S. Saraidhela, P.O. & District Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, 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 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 24.04.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.81 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 384, 379, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner demanded extortion of Rs.50,000/- and committed theft of Rs.10,000/- and criminally intimidated the complainant/opposite party no.2 on the point of pistol and ( 2025:JHHC:18414 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2184 of 2017 also committed mischief by breaking the boundary wall of the opposite party no.2, causing loss of Rs.1500/- 4. On the basis of complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 384, 379, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. vide M.P. Case No.1672 of 2013 was instituted because of the land dispute between the parties, as the police registered a non-FIR case and forwarded the same to the SDM, Dhanbad and the same was made absolute against the complainant and the revision filed by the complainant was dismissed, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. 6. Learned Addl.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 intentionally putting the complainant in fear of injury to him and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver Rs.50,000/- and out of the Rs.50,000/- they took Rs.15,000/- also, which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the petitioner committed theft of 500 pieces of bricks worth Rs.1,500/- and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, besides there is allegation that the petitioner committed mischief by breaking the boundary wall of opposite party no.2 causing loss of Rs.1,500/- and also criminally ( 2025:JHHC:18414 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2184 of 2017 intimidated the complainant and forcing him not to enjoy his property, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 it is a settled principle of law 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 that the defence of the accused and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be the job of the trial court. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with, as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) ( 2025:JHHC:18414 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2184 of 2017 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of forcing the complainant to part with Rs.15,000/- after putting the complainant in fear of injury to him and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, there is allegation against the petitioner of committing theft of bricks worth Rs.1,500/- which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, there is allegation against the petitioner of committing mischief by breaking the boundary wall of the complainant causing loss of Rs.15,000/- and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and there is also allegation against the petitioner of criminally intimidating the complainant at the point of pistol to prevent him from enjoying his property and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. in exercising of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of July, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj