( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2321 of 2024 ------ 1. Anish Kumar Dokania @ Anish Kumar Dokaniyan @ Anish Dokania, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Shiv Ratan Dokania, Director, Model Fuels Private Limited, R/o Dokania Bhawan, Katras Road, P.O. & P.S.-Bank More, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. Kunal Ranjan, aged about 43 years, S/o Shyam Mohan Sinha, Sales Head, Model Fuel Private Limited, R/o MIG B/11, Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Nawal Kishore Prasad, Sales Manager, Model Fuels Private Limited, R/o Near Triloki Nath Mandir, Yaduvansh Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ganesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Sri Gayaram Thakur, resident of Basti Balidih, P.O. & P.S.-Balidih, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY I.A. No.10080 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant Cr.M.P. ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.2321 of 2024 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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.201 of 2024 including the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 323, 504 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioners basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police in the case against the petitioners for having committed the said offence. 3. The allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common intention cheated the informant/complainant by deceiving him that on payment of Rs.16,800/-, they will arrange the registration of the vehicle namely Mahindra Alfa Load Plus of the complainant and will also arrange the tax and fitness documents of the said vehicle and by so deceiving the complainant/informant by fraudulently making the ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 complainant/informant believe that what they are saying is in fact true, by inducing him made him part with Rs.16,800/-, but cheated him and did not get the said registration done and on the complainant/informant demanding for the same, the petitioners caused hurt to the complainant/informant and intentionally insulted him in such a manner to provoke him to cause breach of peace and to commit other offences. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.1529 of 2022 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., police registered Balidih P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners; basing upon which, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 15 SCC 164 and submit that in the facts of that case involving the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act and it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-24 that while inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length of 04 years between the initial site inspection, show-cause notice and the complaint must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor; as a grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. It is next submitted that, in ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 this case, there is a delay of 2.5 years in lodging the FIR during which period, the complainant alleges that the petitioners were promising to get the registration done, firstly from Jharkhand, thereafter, from other states and ultimately from Andhra Pradesh, so for such reason, the prayer of the petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2023 INSC 1088, wherein the facts of that case, except the statement “they beat me up” by the complainant/informant, there were no material available in the record regarding commission of the said offence, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in that case, the basic ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is lacking in the charge sheet. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 and submits that in para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and held that intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. It is next submitted that, in this case, since, there is no material in the record to suggest that intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 offence, hence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 and submits that in para-15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating to be a fine one and it depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement; which may be judged by his subsequent conduct and submits that in this case, the petitioners having no intention to cheat the complainant/informant, hence, the offences punishable under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners deceived the complainant/informant by their fraudulent acts, by making him believe that upon his paying Rs.16,800/-, they will get the vehicle registered, arranged the tax and fitness documents of the vehicle; even though the petitioner has had no intention to provide the documents or to get the vehicle registered, since the beginning and when the complainant/informant was so deceived, they induced him to part with Rs.16,800/- and the complainant after ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 being so deceived was induced and consequent upon such inducement parted with Rs.16,800/-, but ultimately, the petitioners having not done the acts for which they received the said money, hence, the allegations are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State that the delay is well explained that the complainant has mentioned in the complaint itself that the petitioners from time to time were taking him for a ride by making him believe that they will soon get the registration done, firstly, by saying that they will get it done from other states and lastly they made the promise to get the registration of the vehicle done from the State of Andhra Pradesh, so keeping in view the nature of deception played by the petitioners, the delay is well explained, hence, this is not a case where on the ground of delay, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State further submits that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offence in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and he cannot add or subtract any section at the time of taking cognizance, because the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge. Otherwise also, the police during the investigation of the case has found the allegation of commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, as the complainant sustained bodily pain and injury inflicted by the petitioners; which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the veracity of the claim of the complainant of having sustained simple hurt is the subject matter of the trial and when the police has found the allegations against the petitioners to be true which has been mentioned in the case diary, so at this stage, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside and the same is the case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of playing deception, having deceived the complainant/informant by making him believe that upon payment of Rs.16,800/-, the petitioners will arrange the tax and fitness documents and get the vehicle registered and when the complainant was so deceived, the petitioners have successfully induced him by making him part with Rs.16,800/- which they have taken but they have cheated the complainant/informant as they have not done the registration or handed over the tax and fitness documents of the vehicle concerned to the complainant/informant, hence, the allegations are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 8 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R. on which investigation has been conducted, the Magistrate before whom ( 2026:JHHC:22311 ) 9 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024 the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge- sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing the charge. 13. Now, since the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code were also found to have been committed by the petitioners during the investigation of the of the case as the allegations made by the complainant/informant was found to be true by the police, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th of July, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 30/07/2026