[ 2026:JHHC:3059] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2092 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2092 of 2023 1. Mojammel Hoque @ Abul Hosen, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Abdul Rasid, 2. Pintu Sk. @ Md. Unan Mandal, aged about 44 years, Son of Unus Mandal @ Yeanush Sk. 3. Yeamin Sk. @ Md. Amin Sk., aged about 32 years, Son of Mojemmel Hoque @ Md Abul Hossain 4. Ajahar Sk. @ Ajharuddin Shaikh, aged about 29 years, Son of Buddin Shaikh 5. Abdul Kalam @ Abul Kalam Ajad aged about 64 years, Son of Late Mihibulla Sk. @ Md Mohibulla Sk. 6. Jahangir Sk. @ Jahangir Alam, aged about 38 years, Son of Abdul Kalam Sk. @ Abul Kalam Ajad All are resident of village & P.O- Dharmkhanpur P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Aklema Bibi, Wife of Gulam Ambia, resident of village - Dharmkhanpara, P.O. and P.S. –Maheshpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand .….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Din Dayal Saha , Adv. 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 CrPC with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 28 of 2022 by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder, learned Sessions Judge, has allowed the revision which was directed against the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned SDJM, Pakur in connection with Complaint case no. 58 of 2022 by which, learned SDJM, Pakur has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of CrPC. 3. The brief facts of the case is that upon perusal of the record, learned Sessions Judge, Pakur has observed that the materials in the record goes to show the materials to constitute the [ 2026:JHHC:3059] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2092 of 2023 offence of wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt and commission of theft by the Opp. Party no. 2 and learned Sessions Judge, has also considered the settled principle of law that at the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 of CrPC, learned Magistrate is not to examine and assess the details, the materials placed on record, by the prosecution nor it is for the magistrate to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons and at this stage of issuance of process under section 204 of CRPC, the magistrate is to examine the materials only with a view to satisfy that a prima facie case of commission of the offence, as alleged , is made out and as per the opinion of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, hence, learned Sessions Judge, allowed the revision and set aside the order impugned before it and directed the SDJM, Pakur to pass appropriate order under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Khatiyani Raiyat of the land in question claimed by the complainant and the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the said land. It is next submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the petitioner has not dared to mention in this petition as to why the order of learned sessions Judge, Pakur, is to be quashed and set aside, as there is no illegality in the said order and only vague submission has been made that since the order is not sustainable in law, hence, the same be quashed and set aside. It is next submitted that in the absence of any specific illegality in the impugned order having [ 2026:JHHC:3059] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2092 of 2023 been claimed by the petitioner, there is no rhyme or reason to quash the said order. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, learned CJM, Pakur in whose court, the case is pending, has framed charges inter alia against the petitioners on 22.05.2025 and before that, on sufficient material having been found by the concerned court for issuance of the summons to the petitioners; the petitioners have neither challenged the summoning order nor challenged the order by which, the charge has been framed. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this court finds that the only ground mentioned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, why the impugned order is to be quashed and set aside, is that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Perusal of the entire Criminal Miscellaneous Petition reveals that absolutely no contention has been raised as to in what manner the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur is not sustainable in law. The undisputed fact remains that meanwhile, learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order and learned CJM, Pakur has framed the charges against the petitioners on 22.05.2025. It is not in dispute that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences of wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt and theft as mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. 8. Under such circumstances, since there is absolutely no contention of the petitioners as to why the impugned order is to be quashed and set aside and there is categorical averment by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in the impugned order that during the enquiry, it has come that the petitioners have committed the offence of inter alia wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt, this Court is of the considered view [ 2026:JHHC:3059] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2092 of 2023 that there being no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under section 482 of CrPC; this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioners to be acceded in exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 4th February, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 20.02.2026