JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.04.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 447 of 2020, whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 171E, 171F, 353, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 123 of Representation of Peoples Act consequent upon submission of the charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used criminal force and assault upon the inspector of Income Tax who is a public servant in execution of his duty of verifying the hotel rooms as member of flying squad consisting of other public servants also constituted to prevent adoption of illegal means in the Lok Sabha Election for the 14-Hazaribagh Lok Sabha Constituency for the Lok Sabha Election of the year 2019. It is alleged that the petitioner was involved in bribery by giving gratification to persons with object to inducing them to exercise electoral rights and has also committed the offence of exercising undue influence at the election. When the informant-Executive Magistrate-cum-Block Development Officer, Hazaribagh Sadar Block got information that in a hotel at Hazaribagh to exert undue influence in the election of Hazaribagh Lok Sabha Constituency, some rooms have been booked and huge amount of money has been kept; a raid was conducted in the said hotel by the flying squad duly constituted by election commission consisting of public servants and it was found that four different rooms of the hotel was booked by one of the co-accused persons and from those four different rooms booked by co-accused person huge amount of cash has been recovered. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was present in one of the rooms booked by the co-accused and when flying squad consisting of public servants tried to enquire into the contents of the rooms in which the petitioner was present, petitioner used criminal force and assault upon the public servants consisting of flying squad by manhandling them and obstructing them in discharge of their official duties. From the room in which the petitioner was present along with two unknown persons, several documents relating to giving and taking of money was recovered. 4. On the basis of the written report, police registered Korrah P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation police found the allegation to be true and submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner and basing upon the same, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has not yet been framed by the trial court. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 4 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quoted Clause 4 of paragraph no.102 of the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 wherein, it has been mentioned that if the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the police officer without the order made by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 151(2) of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the offence under Section 171 E and 171 F are non-cognizable offences; registration of the FIR is not maintainable. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire incident was captured in by videography, done by the informant party and the petitioner has applied for the copy of entire videography through Right to Information Act and the DVD provided by the Deputy Election Officer, Hazaribagh will go to show that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits by drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand in this case that during the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses namely Rahul Kumar Malto who is Assistant Engineer at the relevant time and member of flying squad has been recorded in paragraph no.6 of the case diary, witness- Manoj Kumar Ojha who is a Junior Engineer at the relevant time and member of flying squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph no.13 of the case diary, Abhishek Kumar Pandey who is State Tax Officer and member of flying squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph no.14 of the case diary, Jyotish Oraon who is Junior Engineer and member of flying squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph no.15 of the case diary and Rajendra Prasad Singh who is Circle Officer, Hazaribagh and member of flying squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph no.15 of the case diary have all supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution to the extent as alleged by the informant in the FIR. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations against the petitioner are all false basing upon the DVD which has been supplied to him by the Deputy Election Officer, Hazaribagh but that is the defence of the petitioner that he can certainly take during the trial of the case but this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot look into the defence of the petitioner when prosecution evidence is yet to start. It is further submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the genuineness of DVD filed by the petitioner can only be examined during the trial in accordance with law and the same cannot be done by this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute all the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. P.P. that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute all the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 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 available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the defence of the accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person 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 ; more so when the evidence of the prosecution is yet to begin. 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 Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the 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) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner manhandled the public servants who were conducting the enquiry to prevent unfair electoral practices. 10. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner manhandled the public servants who were conducting the enquiry to prevent unfair electoral practices. 10. It is a settled principle of law that while the High Court exercises the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; it has to treat the contents of the FIR to be true as it is. So, if the contents of the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, certainly, the assault as mentioned in Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 11. It is profitable to quote Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “351. Assault .—Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation .—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.” 12. The explanation of Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code would make it abundantly clear that the words which a person uses may give to his gesture or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault. 13. So if the contents of the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the co-accused persons by assaulting public servants consisting of flying squad constituted by the Election Commission of India in execution of their duty; as such public servant. The contention of the petitioner that the DVD provided by the Deputy Election Officer, Hazaribagh will go to show that he is innocent cannot be considered by this Court because that is only, the defence of the petitioner and the genuineness of the DVD is to be tested and which can only be done by the trial court during the full dress trial of the case but that cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 14. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the observation made in that case was with respect of a First Information Report, where all the offences involved are non-cognizable offences. The fact of that case is different from the facts of this case, as in this case the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is a cognizable offence. So, in this case, one of the offences is a cognizable offence and some other offences are non-cognizable offences. The mandate of law is crystal clear that the FIR can be registered, if at least one of the offences involved in the case is a cognizable offence and in such case police can conduct investigation without any permission from any Magistrate. Since the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, which is one of the offence for which FIR has been registered and which allegation is found to be true also during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra). 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.04.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 447 of 2020 as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to be allowed in exercise of the power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 16. 16. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.