(2026:JHHC:19031) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1823 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1823 of 2026 ------ Ravindra Pratap Deo, aged about 65 years, Son of Late Shivbansh Deo Singh, Resident of Ward No.08, Village- Babhani, P.O.- Mahedeiya, P.S.- Nagar Untari, Dist.- Garhwa … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, 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 First Information Report including all subsequent proceedings arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), 329 (3) and 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023, now pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Nagar Untari. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused Sunil Kumar who is a retired Circle Officer of Nagar Untari, has, by committing forgery, recorded an erroneous entry of Jamabandi. (2026:JHHC:19031) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1823 of 2026 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the present Circle Officer, police registered Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 and took up investigation of the case which is going on at present. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had any dishonest intention or that he has committed any act of forgery, cheating or any criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that no illegality has been committed in entry of the land in the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the informant/respondent initiated a Misc. Case without any number against the petitioner for cancellation of a long forty (40) years of running Jamabandi. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Uma Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024:JHHC:17102 (Cr.M.P. No.4171 of 2023) and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submits that in this case also, the offence in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered, is not made out. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:11106 (Cr.M.P. No.1065 of 2021) and submits that therein this Court in the facts of that case, as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was not made (2026:JHHC:19031) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1823 of 2026 out, quashed the entire criminal proceeding, hence, it is submitted that in this case also, the entire criminal proceedings, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the only contention of the petitioner to quash the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not true. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the defence put forth by the accused person of the case, who is the petitioner in this case. Hence, the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. It is next submitted that the facts of the cases the judgements of which relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are entirely different from the facts of this case. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 that the defence of an accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the High Court as that would be the job of (2026:JHHC:19031) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1823 of 2026 the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 10. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 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 482CrPC. 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 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner are considered to be true then the penal offences are made out against the petitioner but the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made against him in the F.I.R. are false. The petitioner has the liberty to raise the said grounds before the Investigating Officer of the case during the investigation of the case and if necessary, during the trial of (2026:JHHC:19031) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1823 of 2026 the case but certainly in view of the prohibition for this Court to conduct any mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the defence of the petitioner in exercise of the power conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of June, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 02/07/2026