(2026:JHHC:24789) 1 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 946 of 2020 Baijnath Rai @ Baidya Nath Roy, son of late Yogendra Rai, aged about 60 years, at present A.D.M., Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hazaribagh resident of near Polytechnic Gate, V.I.P. Colony, P.O.-Polytechnic, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vijay Kumar Sao @ Vijay Kumar, son of late Hira Lal Saw, resident of Manaitand Chatt Talab, P.O.-Dhansar, P.S.- Dhansar, Dist.-Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Aditi Raj, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No.2243 of 2015 including the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case (2026:JHHC:24789) 2 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and passed the summoning order; as also to quash the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in the said C.P. Case No.2243 of 2015 whereby and where under, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 30.05.2019. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who was the Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India did not release the money against the death claim of the father of the complainant; who had two policies with the LIC. There is specific allegation that on 30.06.2014, the petitioner along with co-accused persons came to the house of the complainant and threatened him by saying that since payment has been made, so why he is repeatedly asking for payment. The complainant filed C.P. Case No.1624 of 2014 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police registered Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No.1226 of 2014 and after investigation of the case police submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioner for trial. The complainant filed Protest-cum-Complaint Petition and on the basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, (2026:JHHC:24789) 3 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the said offences and passed the summoning order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on a concocted story only because he was the Branch Manager of the LIC and he did not pay the death claim of the insurance policies of the father of the complainant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no whisper in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation of any hurt being caused to him inflicted by the petitioner or anyone else nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of entering into the house of the complainant with intent to commit any offence or to intimidate or annoy any person in possession of the property. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para-10 of the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the complainant has admitted that he has received Rs.1 Lakh from the LIC of India in his account and the allegations made against the petitioner is bald allegations and general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed for wrecking vengeance. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, (2026:JHHC:24789) 4 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality by failing to consider that even though the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true, in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner, be allowed. 5. 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 criminal miscellaneous petition and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in the complaint, it has categorically been mentioned in para- 6 that the accused- Vijay Kumar Singh pushed the complainant by which he fell down and suffered injuries and thereafter only, the petitioner and the co-accused went away. It is next submitted that the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 323/448 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available (2026:JHHC:24789) 5 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:- (1) The complainant was in possession of the property; (2) Property consisted of a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or a building used as a place of worship or for custody of property; (3) The accused entered into or upon such building, tent or vessel; (4) Having entered lawfully into such building, tent or vessel, the accused remains there unlawfully; (5) His intention was to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanwal Sood vs. Nawal Kishore reported AIR 1983 SC 159. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the entry of the petitioner upon property in possession of the complainant was lawful and there is no allegation against the petitioner of unlawfully remaining upon such property nor there is any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner unlawfully remained over the property of the complainant/informant (2026:JHHC:24789) 6 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 with the object of intimidating, insulting or annoying the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, there is absolutely no whisper about any hurt being caused to the complainant by the petitioner. The only allegation in the complaint is that the co-accused pushed the complainant by which he fell down and got injured. Such bald statement, keeping in view the admitted grievance of the complainant against the petitioner that the petitioner being an Officer of the LIC of India was not paying the death claim of his father in respect of two insurance policies, in the considered opinion of this Court has been made only for wrecking vengeance and otherwise, also the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from the facts that has been brought on record. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since none of the offences in (2026:JHHC:24789) 7 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 respect of which prima facie case was found out by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad i.e the offences punishable under Sections 323/448 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No.2243 of 2015 including the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 11. 11. Further, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality in not appreciating the fact that though the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 323 nor the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence, the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.2243 of 2015 is also not sustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No.2243 of 2015 including the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad as also the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the (2026:JHHC:24789) 8 Cr.M.P. No.946 of 2020 learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition, stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th August, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 19/08/2026