[2025:JHHC:37145] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2922 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2922 of 2023 ------ 1. Vidya Devi @ Bediya Devi @ Bidya Devi, W/O- Basudeo Mahto, Aged about 37 years 2. Hemanti Devi, W/O- Lalchand Mahto, Aged about 36 years, 3. Dewanti Devi, W/O- Teklal Mahto, Aged about 38 years 4. Prit Mahto @ Pirat Mahto, S/O- Late Rati Mahto, Aged about 65 years 5. Khiro Mahto, S/O- Late Rati Mahto, Aged about 66 years, All the residents of village- Karri Khurd, P.O. + P.S.- Chatrochatti, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ 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 the prayer to quash the Complaint (Forest) Case No. 534 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 05.02.2019 as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with the said case in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33-1(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section [2025:JHHC:37145] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2922 of 2023 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 07.06.2018 at about 6.00 AM, the petitioners in contravention of the prohibition under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, broke up the forest boundary pillar and cleared the land for cultivation and for constructing house over the land in a protected forest area. There is also an allegation that the petitioners contravened and abetted the contravention of the provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. On the basis of the prosecution report, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 33-1(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have received summons from the trial court but they have not yet appeared before the trial court. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The land in question belongs to the ancestors of the petitioners and their ancestors have purchased the same by way of sale deed and they used to pay land revenue to the State Government also. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this [2025:JHHC:37145] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2922 of 2023 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the only contention of the petitioners is that the allegation against the petitioners are false which the petitioners can certainly raise at the time of full-dress trial of the case but in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court ought not to adjudicate the defence of the petitioners when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence; and evidence could not be produced by the prosecution, as the petitioners are absconding for a period of over eight years. Hence, the petitioners who have no respect for law have no right and otherwise also not entitled for invocation of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 that the defence of the accused person of the case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, para- 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, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution [2025:JHHC:37145] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2922 of 2023 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is also 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 power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court as that would be 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. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot conduct a mini trial as has been held by 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, 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 [2025:JHHC:37145] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2922 of 2023 particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat is made out against the petitioners. The only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against the petitioners are false. In support of their contention, the petitioners have filed photocopy of the certain documents which, is not admissible in evidence. 10. In view of the discussions made above, since the only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against them are false, which can only be adjudicated by the learned trial court in a full-dress trial, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03rd of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 11/12/2025