( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2025 1. Baleshwar Sao, aged about 55 years, S/o Lalaji Saw, 2. Tileshwari Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Baleshwar Sao, 3. Nitish Kumari @ Nitesh Devi, aged about 25 years, Daughter of Baleshwar Saw 4. Suraj Kumar Saw @ Suraj Kumar, aged about 19 years, son of Baleshwar Saw All are residents of Village –Katkamdag, District –Hazaribag, Jharkhand. .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Satish Kumar, Son of Baleshwar Prasad, Resident of Village – Mandai Khurd, P.O. –Sudhar Vidyalaya, P.S. –Lohsinghna, District –Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate : Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.07.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 856 of 2022 whereby and where under the ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh has found prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323/506/379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 being the mother-in-law and petitioner no.3 being the wife of the complainant respectively and the petitioner no.4 being the brother of the wife of the complainant did marpit (beating), threatened the complainant and snatched away the motorcycle given to the complainant by them at the time of the marriage of the petitioner no.3 with the complainant. The complainant first filed Complaint Case No. 2751 of 2019 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which police registered Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 21 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioner nos. 1 & 2, who are the named accused persons of that case, for trial as the allegation against them are found to be not true. Subsequently, the complainant filed Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 856 of 2022 and on the basis of the Protest-cum-Complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh, found prima- facie case for the offences as already indicated above and passed the summoning order. ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any allegation of any infirmity, pain or disease caused to the complainant or anyone else, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that in the absence of any alarm being caused to the complainant, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that as admittedly, the motorcycle which was given by the petitioners to the complainant at the time of marriage of the petitioner no.3 with the complainant has been taken by them, the same will not amount to the offence of theft. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and submits that in para-25 thereof, it has been held that if the F.I.R. as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the F.I.R. to undergo the trial, unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false and charge has not yet ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 been framed in this case. None of the offences alleged is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety. The petitioner no.3 has filed Original Maintenance Case No. 07 of 2021 against the opposite party no.2 which has been allowed and the opposite party no.2 has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner no.3. It is lastly submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that even if the allegations made in the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the offences in respect of which prima-facie case has been found by the petitioners is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, so far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are: (i) the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim. (ii) the accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation that any of the petitioners caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to anyone including the complainant. Under such circumstances, by mere saying doing marpit (beating) without any material to show that there is bodily pain, disease or infirmity was caused to anyone, in the considered opinion of this Court will not amount to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code more so, when there is an admitted case of bickering due to marital dispute between the complainant and the petitioner no.3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph no. 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, 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.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied)” 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners that the petitioners gave any threat with an intent to cause alarm to any person or to cause any 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. In the absence of these essential ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are :- (i) the accused removed the movable property, (ii) he removed it out of the possession of another without his consent; and (iii) he did so with dishonest intention. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. N. Mehra Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1957 SC 369. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of removing any movable property from the possession of the complainant or anyone else with dishonest intention. Admittedly the motorcycle which was allegedly snatched away by the petitioners belongs to the petitioners as the petitioners admittedly presented the same to the petitioner no.3 at the time of her marriage with the complainant. 13. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any dishonest intention on the part of any of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that this case has been instituted for the purpose of wreaking ( 2026:JHHC:10695 ) 8 Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2025 vengeance because of the bickering relating to the strained marital relationship between the petitioner no.3 and the complainant. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 26.07.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 856 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh has found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323/506/379 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 26.07.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 856 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh has found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323/506/379 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 16. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th March, 2026 AFR/Sonu/- Uploaded on 27.04.2026