[2026:JHHC:21682] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1336 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1336 of 2023 ------ 1. Arjun Prasad aged about 62 years Son of Sukhdeo Prasad 2. Jagdish Prasad aged about 61 years Son of Late Kulakhi Mahto 3. Lildhari Prasad aged bout 63 years Son of Late Lekhraj Mahto All resident of Village Salaiya, P.O. and P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rameshwar Prasad Son of Late Badho Mahto, resident of Village Salaiya, P.O. and P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 844 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. [2026:JHHC:21682] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1336 of 2023 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is next fixed to 10.08.2026 for appearance of the accused persons of the case. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are intending to grab the land of the complainant basing upon the forged agreement and they have also filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2017 and are threatening that they will grab the land of the complainant. 5. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the said offences. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that even after the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still neither the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. 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 petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, then, both the offences [2026:JHHC:21682] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1336 of 2023 punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 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; 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; 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are telling that they will grab the land of the complainant but there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of the offence. 10. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner No.1 as plaintiff has filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2017 on 25.01.2017. The complainant appeared in that suit and filed written statement and thereafter, this [2026:JHHC:21682] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1336 of 2023 complaint case was filed on 08.06.2017. So, under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners 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 petitioners. 11. 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; iii. He prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of obstructing the complainant or anyone else which prevented any person from proceeding in certain direction in which such person had the right to proceed. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners 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. 14. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out [2026:JHHC:21682] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1336 of 2023 against the petitioners, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 844 of 2017, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No. 844 of 2017, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 16. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of July 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 23/07/2026