2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 …… Shiv Charan Hembram @ Shib Charan Hembram S/o Late Baila Hembram, R/o Vill. Kalajore, P.O. Salpatra, P.S. Amrapara, Dist: Pakur, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Masodi Hembram, S/o Late Charan Hembram @ Chunu Hembram, R/o Vill. Kalajore, P.O. – Salpatra, P.S.- Amrapara, Dist: Pakur, Jharkhand … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. Mrs. Suman Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Farooq Ansari, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER Order No.11/Dated- 15.05.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 06.05.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Pakur in Amrapara P.S. Case No.54 of 2013 (G.R. Case No.1090 of 2013) whereby and whereunder under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. claiming compensation for malicious prosecution has been allowed and Rs.10,000/- compensation has been imposed upon the petitioner with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for 30 days, if he fails to make payment 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 2 of the aforesaid compensation amount within one month from the date of order. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant lodged a complaint (Complaint Case, i.e., P.C.R. No.244 of 2013) against the opposite party No.2 Masodi Hembram stating inter alia that lands of pertaining to J.B. No.6 of Mouza Kalajore No.2 total area 66 Bighas, 14 Khattas and 9 Dhurs was recorded in the name of Gumda Hembram S/o Late Bulai Hembram and Somai Hembram S/o Chunda Hembram. It is alleged that Somai Hembram had three sons namely Lodra Hembram, Sudan Hembram and Churka Hembram. Sudan Hembram died issue less and the entire land was partitioned between two brothers, Lodra Hembram and Churka Hembram. Lodra Hembram died leaving behind Baila Hembram who died leaving behind a son Shiv Charan Hembram (the present petitioner) and Churka Hembram died leaving behind two sons namely Som Hembram and Chunu Hembram. Som Hembram went to Assam and started permanently living there. Chunu Hembram died leaving behind four sons namely Masodi Hembram (accused), Churka Hembram, Jeevan Hembram and Ram Hembram. It 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 3 is further stated that Land Acquisition Officer acquired .98 acres of land of J.B. No.6 of Mouza Kalajore to expand the road and a compensation was calculated to the tune of Rs.4,06,252/- (Four Lakh Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two) out of which petitioner had half share of Rs.2,03,126/- (Two Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six). It is further stated that accused Masodi Hembram assured the petitioner that he shall take the amount of compensation and after getting the cheque encashed, he shall handover half share to the petitioner. However, the accused even after encashment of Rs.4,06,252/- did not handover the share of the petitioner of Rs.2,03,126/- as compensation rather he misappropriated total amount of compensation Rs.6,09,378/-. The aforesaid complaint was sent to Officer-In-Charge Amrapara P.S. by learned S.D.J.M. exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of the I.P.C. for registration of case and investigation. Accordingly, Amrapara P.S. Case No. 54 of 2013 was registered for the offence under Sections 403/406/420 of the I.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, the Investigating 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 4 Officer submitted charge-sheet against the sole accused Masodi Hembram (opposite party No.2) for the offences under Sections 403/406/420 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance summoned the accused who appeared and denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by informant including the Village Head (P.W.4) and two Investigating Officers of this case. 5. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced by defence, however, one documentary evidence marked as Ext.A has been adduced by defence. 6. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him vide judgment dated 26.04.2017 with observation that the prosecution has neither examined material and relevant witnesses nor has brought on record various documents to prove its case and on the same day, i.e., 26.04.2017, while acquitting the accused, took cognizance against the petitioner and directed him to personally present before the Court and file show cause as to why he should not 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 5 pay compensation to the accused under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the learned Trial Court, the petitioner personally appeared on 03.05.2017 and filed his show cause reply (Annexure-3). The learned Trial Court was not satisfied with the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited before the Court for false acquisition without any ground of the opposite party No.2, failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days which has been assailed in this revision. 8. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Tewari as well as learned A.P.P., Mr. Arup Kumar Dey and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, Mr. Farooq Ansari. 9. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution of the present case was conducted by learned A.P.P. for the State under the charge of Dy. Commissioner who is by virtue of Office In- Charge of the District Prosecution, therefore, District Magistrate/Dy. Commissioner must have been made party to 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 6 this case. The entire case was investigated by concerned police officer and finding sufficient materials against the accused charge-sheet was submitted. If the case might have been found to be malicious or lodged against the accused without any reasonable and probable cause or the information was false and concocted with a view to harass the accused, the police should not have filed the charge-sheet against the accused rather recommend the initiation of prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188/211 I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to form an opinion as to how the informant/petitioner set the law into motion without any reasonable and probable cause against the accused rather the learned Trial Court in the impugned order has simply arrived at conclusion that the defence has proved its defence/suggestion that the accused has been implicated falsely in the instant case due to enmity and grabbing accused compensation money in this way. It was also discussed that the informant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his case, therefore, it is crystal clear that the informant had no reasonable ground for making the acquisition against the accused and passed the 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 7 impugned order which is absolutely illegal and beyond the intent and spirit of provision under Section 250 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that acquittal of the accused due to insufficiency of evidence cannot be termed that the prosecution was launched without any reasonable and probable cause. Here in this case, the complaint was filed by the petitioner and prima facie being satisfied with the contents, the complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station for registration of the case and investigation. The police has also submitted charge-sheet against the accused after thorough investigation of the case. Under such circumstances, the observation of the learned Trial Court in a proceeding under Section 250 Cr.P.C. is absolutely based on extraneous facts and his own assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 assisted by learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed the overall aspects of the case and the materials available on record which clearly goes 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 8 to show that there was no valid reason for instituting this case. The case was filed with ulterior motive to grab the compensation amount exclusively awarded to the accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this revision which is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. It is evident from perusal of record as well as impugned order that the State at the instance of the complainant had prosecuted the accused for the charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation etc. The accused was acquitted of the charges but simultaneously a notice under Section 250 Cr.P.C. was issued against the complainant/informant as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused. 13. Here in this context, the relevant provision as contained in Section 250(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to be referred here :- "The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the acquisition, may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that compensation to such amount, not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 9 as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them." 14. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court has observed that the informant personally receive the show cause notice under Section 250 Cr.P.C. and also filed his show cause but learned Trial Court has not considered the grounds taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply rather relied upon his own judgment, an observation while concluding the trial that he (Magistrate) has opined that since the accused was acquitted and there was no reasonable ground for making acquisition against the said accused and the notice was issued and show cause reply does not contain any documentary evidence. It appears that the spirit of Section 250 Cr.P.C. lies in empowering the Magistrate to order compensation for false or vexatious acquisitions. If an accused is discharged or acquitted, and the Magistrate finds no reasonable cause for the acquisition, he may order the complainant to pay compensation, often with a default sentence of imprisonment. From perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the grounds taken in show cause reply of the petitioner and no 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 10 finding has been recorded thereon. Therefore, mere acquittal of the accused from the charges levelled against him, it cannot be inferred that the prosecution itself was false and vexatious and without any reasonable and probable cause. The mere suggestion of defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and grabbing accused compensation money, itself cannot be assumed to be evidence for branding the prosecution case to be false and vexatious. The accused is also obliged to brought on record the materials for forming the opinion by the Magistrate that the case was lodged without any reasonable and probable cause. It is also evident that the case was duly investigated by police and charge-sheet was also submitted against the accused. The case was disposed of. The case culminated into acquittal due to want of necessary documentary evidence for which there may be so many reasons but it cannot be concluded that the prosecution was without any reasonable cause. 15. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of provision under Section 250 Cr.P.C. and based upon extraneous facts 2026:JHHC:15148 Cr. Rev. No. 923 of 2017 Page | 11 relied upon by the defence. Therefore, impugned order dated 06.05.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Pakur in Amrapara P.S. Case No.54 of 2013 (G.R. Case No.1090 of 2013) is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 15/05/2026 Sachin / Uploaded On: 19/05/2026