(2026:JHHC:4625) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 Jitendra Thakur @ Jitendra Thakoor, S/o Basudew Thakur, aged about 43 years, R/o Panchayat Ghutiya-Pesra Block Suriya, P.O. Ghutiya& P.S.- Suriya, District- Giridih ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Das, S/o- Late Moti Das, R/o- Village Kudar, P.O. & P.S.- Bagodar, Dist- Giridih ... Opposite Parties --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee, Advocate Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate For the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate --------- PRESENT 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 the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 1929 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate after findingprima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the N.I Act, has passed the summoning order against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile the substance of accusation has been (2026:JHHC:4625) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 explained to the petitioner and the case is next fixed for evidence. But the petitioner has not challenged the order by which substance of accusation has been explained to the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- in discharge of debt by way of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- which he was liable to pay to the complainant. The cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- was deposited by the complainant in his account for encashment but the same was dishonoured on 27.07.2022 due to the reason “account closed”. Thereafter, the legal notice dated 28.07.2022 was sent to the address of the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 29.07.2022 but inspite of receiving the legal notice regarding payment of the cheque amount, the petitioner neither replied to the said notice nor paid the amount of the cheque. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint case, basing upon which, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was not issued for discharge of debt and the same was procured by use of pressure for the purpose of compensation from the petitioner, hence it is submitted that no (2026:JHHC:4625) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 offence is made out against the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submit that as to whether the cheque was issued by the petitioner by putting pressure or not is also a question of fact which can only be determined within the full dress trial of the case and the same can be at best a defence of the petitioner which he can raise during the trial of the case, but the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the only contention of the petitioner to quash the entire criminal proceeding is that the petitioner issued a cheque under pressure and not voluntarily. The same can be at best a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take at the time of trial. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person cannot be considered in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by the High Court as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the (2026:JHHC:4625) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 Supreme 501. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. as has been reiterated in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Akhil Sarda and others reported in 2022 livelaw SC 594. The relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 9. 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 as made in the Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. (2026:JHHC:4625) 5 Cr. M.P. No. 422 of 2024 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated:February 12, 2026 N.A.F.R./Pramanik Uploaded on 26/02/2026.