( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2418 of 2020 ------ Kamlesh Tiwary, aged about 39 years, son of Late Raj Kumar Tiwary, R/o Village-Barhawagaon, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, Distt.- Palamau (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anil Kumar Gupta. 3. Prabhu Dayal Gupta. Both son of Baidnath Prasad Gupta, R/o Mohalla-Belwatikar, near Sikh Gurudwara, P.O.-Daltonganj, P.S.-Town Daltonganj, District-Daltonganj (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, GP-I : Mr. Saurav Mahot, AC to GP-I For the O.P. 2 & 3 : Md. Imtiaz Khan, 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 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau has affirmed the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj in C.P. Case No.2323 of ( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj has dismissed the complaint. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 & 3 took some money from the petitioner but did not return the same and when the petitioner went to the house of the opposite party no.2 & 3 demanding the said money, they took the petitioner inside the room of their house and assaulted the petitioner, forcefully made him to fill the cheque which the petitioner give as security to the opposite party no.2 & 3 and snatched away his gold chain. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj considered the discrepancy as to who accompanied the petitioner at the time of his going to the house of the opposite party no.2 & 3 for demanding money and also considered that the case has been instituted by the opposite party no.2 & 3 against the petitioner and also considered unexplained delay of eight months in filing the complaint petition and as from the materials, it appeared to the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj that the complaint case is an afterthought and has been filed as a counterblast to the Daltonganj P.S. Case No.131 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018 lodged by the informant/opposite party no.2 and after considering the materials available in the record, it appeared to the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj that no prima facie case is found; the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj dismissed the complaint petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.10 of 2020 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Palamau ( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 and the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau considered that dispute is basically a dispute regarding the transaction of money between the parties and also considered the inordinate or unexplained delay in filing the complaint and there is discrepancy regarding the quantum of money given by the petitioner to the private opposite party no.2 & 3 and did not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Daltonganj in exercising the revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Saw alias Mahendra Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 CRI. L.J. 1874 and submits that the co-ordinate bench of this Court observed in that case is that the Magistrate at the stage of enquiry could not go into the pros and cons of the evidence of the witnesses and that the settled principle of law is that the Court is only to find out at the stage of enquiry, whether the materials, prima facie makes out an offence and if, prima facie and offence is shown to have been made out on the allegations, then the Magistrate is only expected to proceed with the enquiry and frame charge and that at that stage, he cannot discuss the evidence and give a finding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the opposite party no.2 & 3 are moneylenders and both the courts below failed to consider that the witnesses examined have fully supported the case of the prosecution and both the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj ( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 and the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau have exceeded their jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the case by appreciating the evidence in the record. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that keeping in view the serious consequence of summoning an accused persons, the Magistrate is expected to apply its judicial mind, particularly, keeping in view the acrimony between the parties relating to the monitory transaction between them, so the exaggeration of assault was made only for the purpose of harassing the opposite party no.2 & 3 and thus applying the mind, the learned Magistrate having rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.; in view of the major contradiction as to who were present at the time of alleged assault and also the unexplained delay in approaching the Court of over 8 months in respect of the petty offence and the said order having rightly been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau; it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 it is a settled principle as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in ( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 (2014) 16 SCC 1 that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complaint to succeed in bringing home the charge to the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any of the offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that there was major dispute between the parties regarding monitory transaction between the parties and also the undisputed facts remains that the opposite party no.2 & 3 have instituted a cheque bounce case against the complainant; as admitted by the complainant in para-6 of his statement on solemn affirmation and to set up a defence in that case and it could have been a defence for the complainant for the said cheque bounce case to show that the cheque was not voluntarily given by him but his handwriting and signature on the cheque was obtained by the opposite party no.2 & 3 after assaulting him. There is no allegation of any hurt being caused to the complainant or anyone and in the absence of the ( 2025:JHHC:38496 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.2418 of 2020 same, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj has the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses examined by the complainant during the inquiry. If the complainant’s story is to be believed as per the complaint, at the time of alleged assault, the complainant was accompanied by his nephew Deepak Kumar as mentioned in the complaint and in the statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant stated that he was accompanied by Shankar Tiwari also and the enquiry witness-Shankar Tiwari in his statement has also stated that he was also present, so in presence of three persons with the complainant that four of them together, it is highly unlikely that two of the opposite party no.2 & 3 could have thrashed the complainant in presence of three persons accompanying the complainant. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of the power of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 05/01/2026