[2026:JHHC:20545] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2014 of 2026 ------ Manish Kumar @ Maneesh Kumar aged about 37 years Son of Late Ashish Kumar, Resident of Sudna, P.O. Sudna, P.S. Daltonganj Town, District – Palamau, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, 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 entire criminal proceedings of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 502 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 758 of 2024 including the charge sheet and the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police. [2026:JHHC:20545] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was occupying a shop which was earlier allotted to the father of the informant during his lifetime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, then, none of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, then, all the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau is, in fact, made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 so far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- i. Accused obstructed a person; ii. He did it voluntarily; [2026:JHHC:20545] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 iii. He prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of obstructing any person or preventing any person from proceeding in certain direction in which such person had the right to proceed. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- i. The accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim; ii. The accused did so with the intent of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim; 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of voluntarily causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity and in the absence of such essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire [2026:JHHC:20545] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- i. The accused intentionally insulted someone; ii. He thereby intended to give him provocation; iii. He knew that it was likely that such provocation was caused the person to commit breach of peace or commit any other offence. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of intentionally insulting anyone and in the absence of such essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- i. The accused threatened someone with injury to the person, reputation or property or to the person’s reputation or property with whom the victim is connected; [2026:JHHC:20545] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 ii. The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of the offence; iii. The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do; 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of giving any threatening with intent to cause alarm to the victim nor there is any allegation that any threat was given to the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do and in the absence of such essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 15. In view of the discussions made above, none of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau is made out against the petitioner. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 502 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 758 of 2024 including the charge sheet and the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial [2026:JHHC:20545] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2014 of 2026 Magistrate, Palamau in the said case, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 502 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 758 of 2024 including the charge sheet and the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in the said case, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of July 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 13/07/2026