(2025:JHHC:26557) 1 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4065 of 2018 ------ 1. Deepak Kumar aged about 31 years, son of Beni Sao 2. Sonu Kumar @ Vikas Kumar aged about 25 years. Son of Beni Sao. Both resident of village- Oriya, P.O. Oriya, P.S. Muffasil, Hazaribagh, Distt. Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. P.O., P.S. and District- Hazaribagh 3. The Officer-in-charge SC/ST, P.S. Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District- Hazaribagh 4. Anuj Kumar Rajak, Son of Ashok Kumar Rajak of Resident of Gandhi Nagar Purvi Bhag Gali No.5, Matwari P.O. Korra P.S (Sadar) Hazaribagh District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr. Harshit Ranjan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.4 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, 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 F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh SC/ST P.S. Case No.34 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 406, 419, 420, 379, 34 of the Indian (2025:JHHC:26557) 2 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Cases, Hazaribagh. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed the offence of cheating by inducing the father of the informant to part with his four decimals of land, by way of cheating and have also committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the property of the complainant, which was entrusted to him. There is also specific allegation against the petitioners that on 31.08.2017 at about 10:30 am, the petitioners invited the informant and assaulted him after wrongfully restraining him. There is further allegation against the petitioners that they intentionally insulted and intimidated the informant, who is a member of the Scheduled Castes with intent to humiliate him, in a place within the public view. There is also allegation against the petitioners of committing theft of Rs.1,800/- from the pocket of the informant and by such assault, the informant sustained injuries. The petitioners also criminally intimidated the informant. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Hazaribagh (Sadar) SC/ST P.S. Case No.34 of 2017 and the investigation of the case is going on; which could not proceed because of the stay order passed in this case by the predecessor Judge in the roster. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 and submits that therein the accused persons of the case, in the night demolished the wall of the (2025:JHHC:26557) 3 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 informant of that case and subsequently abused the informant of that case with the name of their caste but no action was taken and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering that in the facts of that case as the accused person of that case did not allege that the accused person was not a member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the accused person of that case intentionally insulted or intimidated the informant with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view, observed that permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in this case also as nowhere the informant has mentioned that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, so, the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that unlike the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (supra), in this case there is specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners categorically abused the informant by calling him – “Saala Dhobi- Kapda Dhone Waala” of Harijan caste and this implies that the petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes; more so because they never claimed that they are the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes nor the surname of their (2025:JHHC:26557) 4 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 father goes to show that they are the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case, hence, on a mere technical ground, the entire criminal proceedings ought not be quashed. It is next submitted that all the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 406, 419, 420, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out against the petitioners. 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 unlike the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (supra), in this case no civil suit has been filed by any of the parties. It is a settled principle of law that the F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of abusing the informant in a place within the public view by calling them to be of Harijan caste and ridiculed them for washing clothes. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that when it is not even the case of the petitioners that they are not the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the allegation in the F.I.R. even though it has not been specifically mentioned therein goes to show that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Hence, not mentioning the same categorically in the F.I.R. itself will be too technical a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage. 9. So far as the other offences are concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing theft of Rs.1,800/- and if the (2025:JHHC:26557) 5 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 same is considered to be true, the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. There is also direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of wrongfully restraining and causing hurt to the informant which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the father of the informant to part with the property and there is also allegation of criminal breach of trust. 11. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioners and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction 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 & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 12. 12. 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 with any 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. 13. 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 paragraph- 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, (2025:JHHC:26557) 6 Cr. M.P. No.4065 of 2018 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.” has held that the defence of the accused person of the case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence in the case. 14. Under such circumstances, the only contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false and the same can only be tested in a full-dress trial of the case but in view of the overwhelming materials in the record to implicate the petitioners in several offences as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners, as prayer for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed in exercise of the power conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 15. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 16. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 13.11.2019, is vacated and pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous. 17. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02nd of September, 2025 AFR/ Animesh