Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21155 (JHR)

Kamal Kumar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-02-11

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation made against the petitioners is that when the petitioners came to know that the informant lodged a complaint case against the petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and they applied pressure upon the informant to withdraw the said case and also threatened that they would kill the family members of the informant. Before lodging the FIR on 24.06.2024, some unknown persons stopped the informant and threatened the informant to kill him unless he withdraws the said case instituted by the informant against the petitioners. Such unknown persons also committed theft of gold chain worth Rs.2,50,000/-, a Titan watch and cash of Rs.32,000/- after wrongfully restraining him. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 23.03.2024 when the daughter of the informant talked to the petitioners over the phone and requested them not to fight and quarrel, the petitioners committed criminal intimidation by threatening to abduct the informant and also caused alarm by saying that his father had already gone to jail for committing a murder but now he is at large and roaming outside. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Adityapur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024 for the said offences and took up investigation of the case; which, is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is still going on. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Adityapur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024 for the said offences and took up investigation of the case; which, is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is still going on. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Lakhotia & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3095 of 2021 dated 26th April, 2024 and submits that in the facts of that case where a purely civil dispute was given a cloak of criminal case, this Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Prakash & Another vs. The State of Jhakrhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 336 of 2023 dated 15th May, 2024 and submits that in the facts of that case as no offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, this Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case also, the allegations against the petitioners are false. The petitioners have not committed any offence. The informant is the maternal-uncle (Mamaji) of the petitioners. The dispute between the parties is regarding payment of interest on the private loan amount. The allegations are baseless. The FIR was lodged after the petitioner No.1 sent the legal notice. The petitioner No.2 to 4 have been arrayed as accused persons in the case only because they are respectively father and brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that the petitioners have committed criminal intimidation of the informant by threatening to kill him unless he withdraws the complaint case instituted by the informant against the petitioners with intent to cause alarm to the informant. It is next submitted that the same if considered to be true in their entirety, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the written report submitted by the informant are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation of the informant by threatening to kill him and also committing criminal intimidation to the daughter of the informant by threatening to abduct her unless he withdraw the complaint case filed against the petitioners in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 10. The only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against the petitioners are false, is at best a defence of the petitioners which the petitioners can take during the full-dress trial of the case but the same is not sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings; in view of the settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is needless to mention the corresponds to section being Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, cannot consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused 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 & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 . 11. 11. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, 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) 12. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered, is, in fact, made out. 13. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the facts of those cases are entirely different from the facts of this case as in those cases, the allegations against the petitioners if considered to be true in their entirety, were insufficient to constitute the cognizable offence. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners made in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023; more so at this nascent stage when investigation of the case is going on. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.