(2025:JHHC:37787) 1 Cr. M.P. No.84 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.84 of 2025 ------ 1. Nutan Sinha @ Nutan Devi, aged about 49 years, Wife of Rajesh Kumar Sinha 2. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 52 years Son of Late Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha Both Resident of Village – Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. – Nimiyaghat, Dist.- Giridih. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gopal Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village- Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Nimiyaghat, Dist.- Giridih … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023 as well as the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023 by which (2025:JHHC:37787) 2 Cr. M.P. No.84 of 2025 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 has purchased the property claimed to be owned by the complainant from Malti Sinha by way of a registered sale-deed and the petitioner No.2 is the husband of the petitioner No.1. The complainant further claims that he has sold half decimals of land to the petitioner No.2 for Rs.25,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners of either deceiving or dishonestly inducing any deceived person to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners of committing any forgery of any valuable security and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true then both the offences punishable under (2025:JHHC:37787) 3 Cr. M.P. No.84 of 2025 Section 420 as well as 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of either deceiving or inducing or dishonestly or fraudulently inducing any person so deceived to part with any property. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is forgery i.e., creation of a false document. There is no allegation against the petitioners of having created any forged document. There is no allegation that in the sale-deed executed by Malti Sinha in favour of the petitioner No.1, there was any impersonation and in the absence of the same, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners intended to grab the property of the complainant on the basis of false documents but there is no allegation against the petitioners of creation of any false document. In the absence of the same, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under (2025:JHHC:37787) 4 Cr. M.P. No.84 of 2025 Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023 as well as the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023 as well as the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.3040 of 2023, is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 05/01/2026