( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 1. Archna Srivastava, aged about 42 years, D/o Vijay Kumar Srivastava. 2. Vijay Kumar Srivastava @ Vijay Kumar Lal, aged about 69 years, Son of Shambhoo Narain Lal 3. Lilawati Srivastava, aged about 68 years, wife of Vijay Kumar Srivastava 4. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, aged about 40 years, son of Vijay Kumar Srivastava 5. Vineet Kumar Srivastava, aged about 38 years, son of Vijay Kumar Srivastava, All Residents of House No. 205/1K/5L, Kasari Marari G.T.B Nagar Near Shyam Lal Inter College Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) 6. Rakesh Srivastava, aged about 50 years, Son of Pratap Narayan Srivastava 7. Anjana Srivastava, aged about 44 years, wife of Rakes Srivastava Both Resident of New MIG 14 –Preetam Nagar, ADA Colony Allahabad Gayasddinpur Uphar Allahabad, P.O. and P.S. – Preetam Nagar, District –Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) …... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Alok Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Nawal Kishore Lal, R/o Near Habsi Camp, Shadeo Nagar, P.O. Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District –Ranchi (Jharkhand) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Nishi Rani, 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 528 of the B.N.S.S. with ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 2 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 834 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no. 1, in furtherance of common intention with the other petitioners, got herself married with the complainant, by suppressing the fact that the petitioner no.1 was earlier married to Vikash Srivastava @ Vikash Kumar and the marriage of the petitioner no.1 with Vikash Srivastava @ Vikash Kumar was subsisting, on the date of marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Musstt Rehana Begum Vs. State of Assam & Another, reported in (2022) 3 S.C.R. 962 submits that in the facts of that case when the allegation against the accused of that case was that, the accused lady of that case was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, because she was having a prior subsisting marriage, at the time of her marriage with the complainant of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that allowing criminal proceeding to proceed for ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 3 an offence punishable under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code would constitute an abuse of the process, as the disputed fact as to whether there was a subsisting marriage on the date on which the accused of that case entered into marriage with the complainant of that case, is a subject matter of the conclusive finding, of the Family Court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of entrustment of any property etc. upon any of the petitioners, hence, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted that there is no allegation of any deception played by the petitioners, to deliver any property, to any person and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the petitioners have cheated the complainant by suppressing the material fact that the petitioner no.1 was having a prior subsisting marriage with Vikash ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 4 Srivastava @ Vikash Kumar. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding ought not to be quashed at this nascent stage. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) Mens-rea (ii) There must be an entrustment; (iii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction of any legal contract, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of any legal direction or of any legal contract. In the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 5 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission, (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of any person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof etc. In the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 6 allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. Since, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to true in their entirety, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 834 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 834 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. ( 2025:JHHC:15676 ) Cr.M.P. No. 3369 of 2024 7 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 9th June, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-