(2025:JHHC:24495) 1 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.646 of 2020 ------ Uday Shankar Pandey, s/o Late Mahesh Pandey, aged about 67 years, r/o Flat No. 1C, 1st Floor, RS Enclave, Ranibagan, PO & PS Bariatu, District Ranchi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vivek Jaiswal, s/o Ramesh Pd. Jaiswal, r/o Flat No. 4A, 4th Floor, RS Enclave, Ranibagan, PO & PS Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi, Permanent address IBP Motor Market, PO + PS Dumri, Dist- Giridih … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh 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. 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, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.1312 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. (2025:JHHC:24495) 2 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the Secretary of the Society formed by the owners of the apartment in a housing complex and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has disconnected the generator connection of electricity connected to the flat of the complainant. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is not rendering the accounts of the collection made from the owners of the flats and abusing the complainant and is not getting the society registered. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, statement of the enquiry witnesses and the documents attached, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, neither the offence punishable under Section 506 nor the offence punishable under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner was elected as Secretary of the said apartment vide a meeting convened by the residents of the apartment. It is further submitted that since the complainant/opposite party No.2 is admittedly a defaulter in paying maintenance charges for several months, hence, it was decided not to extend the facility of the generator connection for supply of electricity to the complainant. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 has also filed a case at Giridih against the petitioner and other accused persons with the same (2025:JHHC:24495) 3 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 allegation vide Dumri P.S. Case No.103 of 2019. Hence, 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 petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that there is allegation against the petitioner of threatening to disconnect the water connection also and abusing the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true then the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case, is made out against the petitioner. 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 so far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it will be profitable to the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph-25 of which reads as under:- “25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, (2025:JHHC:24495) 4 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed in detail the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the threat made by the petitioner was with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat, rather because of failure of the payment of maintenance charges by the complainant for several months, the facility which is maintained by the owners of the house by way of contribution, was denied to the complainant for not giving his contribution. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code are:- (a) The accused must have caused the destruction of some property or some change in it or its situation; (b) Such change must have destroyed or diminished the value or utility of the property or affected it injuriously; (2025:JHHC:24495) 5 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 (c) Destruction or change in the property or situation thereof must have been done with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagen Monda. Vs. State reported in AIR 1972 SC 665. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has disconnected the supply of electricity from the generator to the complainant because of the failure of the complainant to pay the contribution of maintenance charges, by which such facility is run by the society of the residents. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is insufficient to constitute the offence of mischief, the punishment for which has been provided in Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 426 nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that 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 prosecution including the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.1312 of 2019, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.1312 of 2019, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. (2025:JHHC:24495) 6 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2020 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh