( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1667 of 2025 ------ 1. Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Saw, aged about 24 years, son of Rajvir Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.-Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. 2. Savitri Devi @ Savitri Kumari, aged about 25 years, wife of Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.- Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. 3. Jyotosh Saw @ Jyatish Saha, aged about 35 years, son of Bhodha Saw, Resident of Village Jogna, P.O.-Senha, P.S.-Senha, District- Lohardaga. 4. Babita Devi, aged about 34 years, wife of Jyotish Saw, Resident of Village Jogna, P.O.-Senha, P.S.-Senha, District-Lohardaga. 5. Radhiya Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Rajvir Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.-Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. 6. Gokul Saw, aged about 60 years, son of Late Devaki Saw, Resident of Village Jogna, P.O.-Senha, P.S.-Senha, District- Lohardaga. 7. Rajvir Saw @ Raghuvir Saw, aged about 54 years, son of Late Subba Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.-Khadeya, P.S.- Tandwa, District-Chatra. 8. Naresh Saw, aged about 54 years, son of Late Dhanu Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.-Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. 9. Asheshwar Saw, aged about 55 years, son of Late Utim Saw, Resident of Village Jogna, P.O.-Senha, P.S.-Senha, District- Lohardaga. 10. Subba Saw, aged about 70 years, son of Late Jagan Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.-Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arti Devi, wife of Nakul Saw, Resident of Village -Tilayadih, P.O.- Khadeya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra. … Opposite Parties ------ ( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 For the Petitioners : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Gupta, Advocate ------ 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 BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the Complaint Case No.513 of 2024 including the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 354, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of the Witch (Dain) Practices Act, 1999 and passed the summoning order against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly committed house trespass after making preparation to hurt and assault the complainant and called her a Daain and alleged that because of the witchcraft practised by the complainant, the children of the petitioners are suffering from fever. The petitioners caused hurt to the complainant by assaulting her after catching hold of the braid of the complainant and outraged her modesty by tearing her blouse, they ( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 tonsured the head of the complainant and cut the nails of the complainant and pushed Alpin in the finger of the complainant resulting in bleeding from her fingers and assaulted her with fisticuffs and kicks and made her lick the spit from shoes and chappals and after doing this for one and half an hour, the petitioners against each of whom, specific allegation has been made in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses; left the place of occurrence. The petitioners also took away the rice, wheat, wheat flour and destroyed the same by littering the same in the courtyard and also committed theft of the silver chain and the silver anklet of the complainant. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra found prima facie case for the offences as has already been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false and some of the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence because of the alibi taken in respect of the some of the petitioners by taking the plea that they were engaged elsewhere. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the alibi of the petitioners is at best a defence which can be taken during the ( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 trial of the case because the veracity of the same can only be tested by adducing evidence, but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remain that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then each of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra has found prima facie case is in fact made out. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 the accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person, cannot be considered by the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, as that would be the job of 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 & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 Supreme 501. 8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- ( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 “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) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners being member of an unlawful assembly; in prosecution of the common object of the assembly trespassed to the house of the complainant with preparation to commit hurt and assault upon her and outraged her modesty, wrongfully restrained her, caused hurt to her by assaulting her, intentionally insulted her to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence, criminally intimidating her, committed mischief by throwing the rice, wheat flour in the courtyard and also called her a Daain and accused her of practicing witch craft and the undisputed fact remains that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then each of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra has found prima facie case is in fact been made out against the petitioners and the only plea of the petitioners of alibi is at best a defence of the petitioner which can take during the trial of the case, but certainly the same being a question of fact which is highly disputed by the complainant cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of the ( 2026:JHHC:20832 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1667 of 2025 power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners is to be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of July, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 15/07/2026