(2025:JHHC:36723) 1 Cr.M.P. No.4152 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4152 of 2023 Ranthu Ram, aged about 65 years, son of late Bahuraram Ganjhu @ late Bahur Ram, resident at Village-Sosotoli, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Khunti .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola N. Ojha, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023 including the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has referred the Complaint Case No.04 of 2023 to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case, after proper investigation. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner misappropriated the government money as salary by mentioning his (2025:JHHC:36723) 2 Cr.M.P. No.4152 of 2023 caste to be a false one as he has mentioned that ‘Hinduism’ is his caste and he worked under the government for about 20 years. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and since the informant-complainant has not complied with the provision of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. hence, in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as well as in the case of Babu Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti ought not have referred the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner; in respect of which the FIR has been registered. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.13 thereof has laid down the guidelines for streamlining the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval and in Item No. 12, it has been held that no suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no (2025:JHHC:36723) 3 Cr.M.P. No.4152 of 2023 allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the informant or for that matter anyone else, so deceived to part with money nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 406 as well as under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which FIR has been registered. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed and worked as a government servant till he obtained voluntary retirement and in the service book against the caste, it has been mentioned “Hinduism”. There is no allegation against the petitioner of creation of any false document. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has deceived anybody or induced anybody to part with any money. A government servant receiving salary for the work he has done cannot amount to cheating. There is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation against the petitioner and government servant who received salary for the work (2025:JHHC:36723) 4 Cr.M.P. No.4152 of 2023 he has done cannot be termed as dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still, 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. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023 including the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023 including the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th December, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 12/12/2025