[2025:JHHC:35338] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2020 1. Muskan Kumari @ Dipa Devi @ Muskan Roy, aged about 37 years, W/o Rohit Roy R/o Sahjanand Nagar, 142, Children Jail Barmasia Dhanbad P.O & P.S. Dhansar, Distt-Dhanbad. 2. Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar Aged about 64 Years S/o Late Jagdayal Ram 3. Suman Devi, aged about 53 years, W/o Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar 4. Guddu Paswan @ Kanishk Paswan, aged about 29 years, S/o Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar 5. Vicky Paswan @ Navneet Kumar Paswan aged about 31 Years, S/o Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar 6. Dicky Paswan @ Mritunjay Kumar Paswan aged about 35 Years, S/o Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar 7. Shikha Kumari aged about 32 Years D/o Sanjay Paswan @ Sanjay Kumar Petitioner NO 2 to 7 are resident of Shiwaji Maidan, Ward No-14 Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamu (Jharkhand) ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rakhi Rai D/o Late Ram Chandra Rai, R/o Sahjanand Nagar Barmasia, Near Children's Jail, Dhanbad P.O & P.S. Dhansar, Distt- Dhanbad. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC IV For the O.P.No. 2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala , 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 order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2020 in connection with C.P.Case no. 2370 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, learned JMFC, Dhanbad has taken cognizance [2025:JHHC:35338] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the elder brother of the complainant and the petitioner number 2 to 7 are the relatives of the petitioner no. 1 and the allegation against the petitioners is that on 27.07.2019, the petitioner no. 5 took purse of the complainant and gave it to the petitioner no. 1, who took away Rs. 6000/- and some documents from that purse. On the day before also, they committed theft of bronze plates and silver jewelries from the old box. In paragraph 8 of the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation, the complainant- victim has categorically stated that she has not sustained any hurt in the occurrence. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation, the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned J.M.F.C., Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as yet no witness has been examined during the trial. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dimple Kumari and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 31.07.2024 in CrMP No. 29 of 2020, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in that case, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 1088 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023 dated 28.11.2023, paragraph no.9 of which reads as under:- “9. As noted earlier, except the statement that ‘they beat up me’ by the complainant no material whatsoever is available on record in regard to the commission of the said offence. The incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2016. In the recorded statement of the second respondent-complainant or in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent there is not even a whisper that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment. Needless to say, that there is no statement – at least that injury report was prepared. In this context, it is also to be seen in respect of the incident, the FIR got registered only on 04.09.2016, that too much after the filing of petition No. 13/2016 by the appellant herein. Above all, as noted earlier, [2025:JHHC:35338] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2020 basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC is lacking in the chargesheet.” submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the allegation that the marpit was done, will not constitute the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. vs. K. Lalitha reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In order toattract application of Section 341 which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. The averments made in the complaint according to us are not sufficient to even constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In the overall view of the case, we are convinced that no case is made out against the appellants herein as alleged by the complainant. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” and submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners to constitute the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and even though the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC is made out, therefore continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is sufficient material in the record to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. [2025:JHHC:35338] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2020 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, the only victim in this case is the complainant and the complainant in paragraph 8 of her statement under the Solemn Affirmation has categorically stated that hurt was not caused to her in the occurrence of marpit. Under such circumstances and in view of the settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not made out. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation of any wrongful restraint against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that averments made in the complaint are insufficient to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC nor offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC is made out, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2020 in connection with C.P.Case no. 2370 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2020 in connection with C.P.Case no. 2370 of 2019, 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 14th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 02/12/ 2025