(2025:JHHC:31934) 1 Cr. M.P. No.4573 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4573 of 2022 ------ 1. Mamta Verma @ Mamta Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Jaypal Singh 2. Sanjana Devi, aged about 26 years, wife of Abhishek Gupta Both resident of B.B.C. Road, Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T), P.O. & District Giridih. 3. Mira Devi, aged about 62 years, wife of Lakhan Swarnkar Nagina Singh Road, Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T), P.O. & District Giridih. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mira Singh, wife of Dinesh Kumar, resident of Barmasia, P.S. Giridih(T), P.O. & District Giridih. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rahul Dev, 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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.674 of 2017 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 05.01.2018, by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. (2025:JHHC:31934) 2 Cr. M.P. No.4573 of 2022 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners together surrounded the complainant, wrongfully restrained her, caused hurt to her and committed theft of gold chain worth Rs.25,000/- and mobile handset worth Rs.1500/-. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that for an occurrence, which took place two days prior to the occurrence of this case, the petitioner No.1 has lodged Giridih Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2017 after a couple of days of the date of occurrence of this case i.e. on 15.05.2017. It is then submitted that in order to harass the petitioners, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that there is direct and specific allegations against each of the petitioners for each of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and though inadvertently Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has not been incorporated in the order dated 05.01.2018 but it is open for the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih to frame charges with the aid (2025:JHHC:31934) 3 Cr. M.P. No.4573 of 2022 of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of together surrounding the complainant, wrongfully restraining her, causing hurt to her and committing theft of gold chain worth Rs.25,000/- and mobile handset worth Rs.1500/- in furtherance of their common intention. The contention of the petitioners that the allegation against them is false and this false case has been foisted against them, is the defence of the petitioners which the petitioners can take in a full dress trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings as it is a settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court as that would be the 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. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. (2025:JHHC:31934) 4 Cr. M.P. No.4573 of 2022 8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. in view of the direct and specific allegations made against them. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of October, 2025 AFR/ Madhav Uploaded on- 30/10/2025