(2025:JHHC:38054) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2527 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2527 of 2020 ------ 1. Sanju Singh, aged about 56 years, Wife of Late Sripati Singh, 2. Gaurav Singh, aged about 29 years, Son of Late Sripati Singh, Both Resident of Belwatika, P.O. – Daltonganj, P.S. – Town (Daltonganj), District – Palamau, Jharkhand 3. Ravi Singh, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Birendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Kadma Kuan, P.O. & P.S. – Kadam Kuan, District- Patna, Bihar … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hardeep Singh Bagga, Son of Sardar Santokh Singh Bagga, Resident of Belwatika Memorial Hall Road, Ward No.23, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, District – Palamau, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC II For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Shankar 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 the prayer to quash the F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 09.06.2021 based on the charge-sheet by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj for the offences (2025:JHHC:38054) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2527 of 2020 punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the trial is yet to begin. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 do not press the instant Cr.M.P. as they have not been sent up for trial after investigation of the case because of lack of evidence against them. 5. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 namely Sanju Singh and Ravi Singh respectively. 6. So far as the petitioner No.2 namely Gaurav Singh is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of putting any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other person or to dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to deliver any person, any property or any valuable security etc. and in the absence of these essential ingredients, the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner No.2. It is next submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that the petitioner No.2 has put a lock in the godown which belongs to his father and has issued notice to the petitioners consequent upon the dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. (2025:JHHC:38054) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2527 of 2020 7. Learned counsel 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 No.2 made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner No.2; if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:- (i) The accused puts a person in fear of injury to such person or any other person; (ii) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (iii) The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; (iv) Such inducement may be done dishonestly. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay & Another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of putting any person of fear or (2025:JHHC:38054) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2527 of 2020 injury to such person or any other person nor is there any allegation against the petitioner No.2 of inducing any person, put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. In the absence of these essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner No.2. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 09.06.2021 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner No.2 namely Gaurav Singh. 10. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 09.06.2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner No.2 namely Gaurav Singh. 11. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 05/01/2026