[ 2025:JHHC:29744] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 4329 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4329 of 2022 1. Arun Kumar Dubey, aged about 59 years, son of Damodar Dubey, 2. Champa Devi, aged about 75 years, wife of Jag Narayan Tiwari, 3. Shyam Kishor Tiwari, aged about 41 years, son of Jag Narayan Tiwari, all residents of Harihar Singh Road, near Patna Khatal, Morhabadi, P.O. Morhabadi, P.S. Bariyatu, District- Ranchi. ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Phanishwar Tiwari, son of Late Kailash Tiwari, resident of Harihar Singh Road, near Patna Khatal, Morhabadi, P.Ο. Morhabadi, P.S. Bariyatu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar , Adv. Ms. Sonal Sodhani , Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Binod Singh , Adv. 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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the orders dated 14.07.2022 and 21.07.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case no. 1142 of 2021 by which, learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 211, 467, 468 of the IPC against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners created a false document by dishonestly and fraudulently putting the signature of Prema Das, R.S. Prasad, Sikha [ 2025:JHHC:29744] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 4329 of 2022 Choudhary, Sudha Pathak on an application, though the same was not signed by said four persons, whose forged signature was made by the petitioners and the same was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as if the same was the genuine one, making a false allegation against the wife of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witness, learned Magistrate, found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 211, 467, 468 of the IPC against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 211 of IPC are :- (i) the accused instituted a criminal proceeding, (ii) there was no just or lawful wrong for such proceeding or charge was false, (iii) the accused knew at the time of making the charge that there was no lawful wrong, (iv) he made the charge intending to cause the injury to the person, against whom the charge was made. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the sine qua non for constituting the offence punishable under Section 211 is the institution of a criminal proceeding and there is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners instituted any criminal proceeding hence, the learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality for finding the prima facie case under Section 211 of IPC against the petitioners and there is no allegation against the petitioners of forging any valuable security as defined under section 30 of the IPC, so the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC is not made out and as there is no allegation of cheating, so the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC is not made out hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. [ 2025:JHHC:29744] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 4329 of 2022 6. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that in fact, the allegation made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witnesses, if are, considered to be true in their entirety, the offences punishable under sections 467 and 468 of the IPC is made out, so in case, the court decides to quash the impugned order, the matter be remitted to the court of learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 7. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners instituted a criminal proceeding, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 211 of the IPC is not made out, more so, when the complaint has not been filed by any public servant, as envisaged under Section 195(1) (b) (i) of the CrPC. In the absence of any allegation of committing forgery of any valuable security, the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC is not made and in the absence of any allegation that the offence was committed for the purpose of cheating, as defined in Section 415 of the IPC, the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC is not made out but as has rightly been submitted by learned Addl. PP that if the allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 467 and 471 of the IPC is made out. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order dated 14.07.2022 and 21.07.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case no. 1142 of 2021 being not sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside. 9. The matter is remitted to the court of learned JMFC, XXI, Ranchi to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in view of the observation made above. [ 2025:JHHC:29744] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 4329 of 2022 10. In the result, This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11th September, 2025 Smita /AFR