( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2423 of 2019 Kumar Devesh Dwivedee @ Kumar Devesh Diwedi, Age about 44 years, S/o –Late Sarvadeo Dwivedee, R/o –Village –Bazar Tanr, Gomeadih, P.O. –Danadih, P.S. –Sonahatu, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. At present Residing at Block Campus, Deori, P.O. & P.S. – Deori, District –Giridih, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, S/o Shivnarayan Prasad, Age 34 years, R/o Village –Maheshiyadighi, P.O. & P.S. –Deori, District –Giridih, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. (Through V.C.) ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.05.2019, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih by which the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/341/427 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons of the case including the petitioner in connection ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 with Complaint Case No. 1607 of 2018, now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Giridih. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being enraged because of the complaint made by the complainant, who is an advocate by profession, to the Lokayukta against the petitioner, on 30.08.2018 being member of an unlawful assembly caused hurt to the care taker of the property of the complainant namely Shyam Sundar Ram and injured him, twisted his hand and when the father of Shyam Sundar namely Karu Ram came to his rescue, the petitioner also manhandled him and assaulted him. The petitioner forcibly demolished the boundary wall of the property of the complainant causing loss of Rs.5,000/- and forcibly committed theft of agricultural implements and urea fertilizer worth Rs.2000/-. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above and directed for issue of summons. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695, para -35 of which reads as under:- “35. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, this Court interpreted the use of the expression “official duty” to imply that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend its protective cover to every act or ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 omission done by a public servant while in service. The scope of operation of the section is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.” That the expression official duty as mentioned in section 197 of the Code or Criminal Procedure implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and in this case, the petitioner did the acts and omissions in discharge of his official duty. Hence, the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih has committed a grave illegality in directing issue of summons against the petitioner. 5. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.C. Manjunath @ Others Vs. Seetaram, reported in 2025 INSC 439 wherein in the facts of that case, when the accused of the case were police officials and the allegation against them was that they took the victim of that case after trespassing to his house and assaulted him after stripping him of his clothes and continued to torture him throughout the night, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed in para-40 of that Judgment that the safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty and in that case held that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 against the accused persons, without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the that case. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the date of occurrence is 30.08.2018 but the complaint having been filed on 01.09.2018, the same goes to show that the entire complaint petition is a fabricated and planted one with ill motive. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Giridih directed the Circle Officer, Deori for release of the well situated inside the boundary wall constructed by the complainant from the encroachment and submit a compliance report and the same was communicated to the officer in-charge of Deori Police Station by the Circle Officer, Deori. It is then submitted that the petitioner being a government servant has followed and obeyed the direction of the superior authority. It is then submitted that the petitioner was the in-charge of the Circle Officer, Deori at the relevant time but he was not present at the place of occurrence on 30.08.2018. It is next submitted that the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih without proper verification has found prima facie case and ordered issue of summons. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner is this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the petitioner wants to ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 blow hot and cold in the same breath. On the one hand, the petitioner has taken the plea that he was not present at the place of occurrence, on the other hand, he has taken the plea that since he did the acts in discharge of his official duty, hence he wants the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which pleas are contrary to each other. It is next submitted that by no stretch of imagination, an In-charge Circle Officer can be authorized to twist the hand of an innocent person and assault him and when the father of the victim comes to his rescue, to assault him and cause hurt to him. It is next submitted that the only plea of the petitioner is that the allegations against him are false, which at best can be a defence of the petitioner but the veracity of the same cannot be tested by the High Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 that the defence of the accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court. ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 9. In the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & 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 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) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the defence of an accused person of a case cannot be considered before the prosecution adduces evidence in the case. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner has taken the plea that he was not present at the place of occurrence. Certainly, such a plea cannot go simultaneously with a contradictory plea that he committed the offence in discharge of his official duty. The only contention of the petitioner that the allegations against him are false is the defence of the petitioner which certainly the petitioner is entitled to take during the full dress trial of the case but the veracity of the same cannot be considered while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. There is ( 2025:JHHC:29594 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.2423 of 2019 direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being member of an unlawful assembly caused hurt to the victim Shyam Sundar Ram and his father besides causing mischief and wrongfully restraining them. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner be quashed and set aside in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2nd September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-