( 2025:JHHC:33717 ) Cr.M.P. No.3102 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3102 of 2025 1. Mahalakshmi Devi @ Maha Laxmi Devi, W/o Late Sureshwar Jha, aged about 79 years 2. Dhananjay Kumar Jha, S/o Late Sureshwar Jha, aged about 47 Years Both are residents of H. No. 4, Block No. 36/1/4, Road No. 18, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. –Adityapur, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan. .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) & 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 entered into an agreement to sell her land to the informant and took advance of Rs.5,00,000/- but the informant later on decided not to purchase the said land and when the informant demanded back the said advance money, the petitioner no.1 told the ( 2025:JHHC:33717 ) Cr.M.P. No.3102 of 2025 2 informant to get her land sold to someone else and she will pay back the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- after receiving the total consideration amount of the same and in this respect, the petitioner no.1 executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant in which the petitioner no.2 was a witness. The informant sold the land of the petitioner no.1 to his brother by virtue of the registered power of attorney and paid the consideration amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.1 returned Rs.15,00,000/- including Rs.10,00,000/- he took later on from the informant but later on the petitioners expressed their intention to first revoke the power of attorney and subsequently through their lawyer intimated that they want to continue the power of attorney. Apprehending that even though the registered power of attorney has lost the purpose for which the same was issued i.e. the sale of the concerned land of the petitioner no.1 which has already been made on 29.05.2019, some conspiracy is being made by the petitioners, the informant lodged the F.I.R. and basing upon which, Adityapur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 has been registered. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 316(2) nor the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that the ( 2025:JHHC:33717 ) Cr.M.P. No.3102 of 2025 3 continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition but fairly submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the petitioner no.1 has paid back the advance amount, she has taken from the informant. An intimation to the informant, who is the power of attorney holder, for revoking the power of attorney, after the same has become infructuous, as in exercise of the said power of attorney, the informant has already sold land through a sale deed, by itself do not constitute either the offence punishable under Section 316(2) or the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as neither of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered is made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence continuation of this criminal proceeding in connection with the F.I.R. of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 against the ( 2025:JHHC:33717 ) Cr.M.P. No.3102 of 2025 4 petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the FIR of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) & 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the FIR of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 316(2) & 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/11/2025