( 2025:JHHC:35375 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.478 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.478 of 2019 ------ Ram Babu Prasad @ Rambabu Prasad, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Hardip Gope, R/o South Tisra Colliery, P.S.-Tisra, P.O.-Tisra, District-Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Krishna Mahato, S/o Shri Kailash Mahato, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, P.O.-Bhaga, P.S.-Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has been validly 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1333 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned ( 2025:JHHC:35375 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.478 of 2019 Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used a cheque given by the complainant to the co-accused Subedar Yadav, who used to be the employee of the Complainant, to claim that the said cheque has been issued by the complainant to the petitioner and upon dishonor of the said cheque, issued notice to the complainant of the cheque amount. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad basing upon the materials available in the record found prima facie case for the said offences as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing hurt to the complainant or anyone else nor there is any allegation of wrongfully restraining the complainant or anyone else. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of criminal intimidation made by the petitioner to anyone, hence, it is submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner, even if, are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which the prima facie case is found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false, in fact, the cheque was issued by the complainant to the petitioner in discharge of debts and the present case has been filed to setup a defence in the case instituted by the ( 2025:JHHC:35375 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.478 of 2019 complainant against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute all the three offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, 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 no allegation against the petitioner of causing hurt to the complainant or anyone else and in the absence of the same, this Court finds that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of causing hurt, wrongfully restraining the complainant or anyone else and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of criminal intimidating the complainant or anyone else, and in ( 2025:JHHC:35375 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.478 of 2019 the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. In view of the discussion made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case is in fact made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1333 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.1333 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 12/12/2025