(2026:JHHC:3586) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3469 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3469 of 2024 ------ Md. Parwej, aged about 34 years, S/o. Md. Salim @ Shamim, resident of: 527, Laraiyatand, Hosir Purvi, Hasir, P.O.- Saram, P.S: Gomia District- Bokaro, State: Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.423 of 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has dismissed the revision petition filed against the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, prayer has also been made to quash and set aside the order dated 19.07.2024 whereby and (2026:JHHC:3586) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3469 of 2024 where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has dismissed the said petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on the allegation that on 13.11.2022 at 5:00 p.m., the petitioner kept a stolen bullet motorcycle without any number plate in his house and was seeking customer to sell it; Police reached the house of the petitioner and apprehended the petitioner along with the stolen bullet motorcycle kept in the parking place of his house. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Bariyatu Police Station, Bariyatu P.S. Case No.333 of 2022 was registered. Police took up the investigation of the case and found the allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The cognizance of the offence was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge. The learned Magistrate opined that there are sufficient materials in the record to find a prima facie case against the petitioner on the basis of the materials available in the record including the witnesses examined during the course of investigation, who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution and dismissed the petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.423 of 2024 before the learned revisional court. It was agitated by the petitioner that there is no evidence suggesting culpability with respect to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, hence, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality by dismissing the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The learned revisional (2026:JHHC:3586) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3469 of 2024 court considered the settled principle of law that while framing charge the court is not expected to examine the evidence available on record meticulously rather having a realistic approach prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 239 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh Rajan reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and after considering the materials available in the record did not find any illegality, ambiguity or absurdity in the order impugned before it and dismissed the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sd. Shabuddin vs. The State of Telangana reported in 2025 INSC 999 and submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the question whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact that both the accused stand acquitted for the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC and answered the question in the negative. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code also, it is necessary that some other person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft and as in this case, not even any F.I.R. has been registered for commission of theft of the bullet motorcycle so, the petitioner ought to have discharged by the courts (2026:JHHC:3586) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3469 of 2024 below and having not done so, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that it is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code that some other person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. Hence, the sole ground of the petitioner to quash the impugned orders is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajendranath vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code that some other person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution is simply to prove that the property recovered is stolen property and that the accused extended help in its concealment and disposal. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, was found to be true during the investigation of the case and upon the completion of the investigation, (2026:JHHC:3586) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3469 of 2024 police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed, the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the materials in the record are sufficient to prima facie establish the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and the sole contention of the petitioner to assail the said orders, that it is necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code that some other person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft, has no legs to stand. 10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason for this Court to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of February, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 17/02/2026