[2026:JHHC:3051] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2128 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2128 of 2020 ------ Raj Kumar Prasad @ Raju, aged about 58 years, son of late Ram Bhanjan Gaunjhu, resident of village: Dahugutu, P.O.: Khunti, P.S.: Khunti, Dist: Khunti. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Renu Devi, wife of Sri Mahabir Ram, resident of village Dahugutu, P.O. Khunti, P.S.: Khunti, District: Khunti … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case being No. 13 of 2019 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.06.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, [2026:JHHC:3051] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2128 of 2020 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner made a false document and committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and by such forged document, made others believe that the land of the complainant which stood recorded in the name of his father Vishwanath Ganjhu in M-form, in fact, belongs to the petitioner and sold the same to them by way of cheating. On the basis of the Complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has found prima facie case for the said offences as already indicated above and passed the summoning order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The petitioner has not committed any offence. Both the petitioner and the complainant are the common descendant of Harkhu Ganjhu but the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in the M-form which was published by the Government on the basis of the return submitted by the Zamindar, after vesting of the land with the State, the name of the father was existing but the same was entered in the M-form erroneously. It is next submitted that there is a bonafide land dispute between the petitioner and the complainant and the case is of civil nature. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. [2026:JHHC:3051] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2128 of 2020 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having created a false document and have thus committed the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the M-form published by the competent Officer of the State, the land in question stood record in the name of the father of the complainant and it is the case of the complainant that by creating forgery, the petitioner has managed to sell the land belonging to the complainant to a third party by way of cheating. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner besides the other offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has found prima facie case against the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false is at best a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 of law that the [2026:JHHC:3051] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2128 of 2020 High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 7. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has made a false document for the purpose of cheating and thus committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and the petitioner has managed to transfer the land belonging to the complainant, though the land admittedly stood recorded in the name of the father of the complainant in the M-form published by the Competent Officer of the State Government, after vesting of the estate with the State Government. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. [2026:JHHC:3051] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2128 of 2020 9. The contention of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false is at best a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05th of February, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 10/02/2026