(2026:JHHC:9656) 1 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 843 of 2026 1. Rajendra Singh, aged about 61 years, son of late Lal Narayan Singh 2. Prem Bhaskar, aged about 41 years, son of Rajendra Singh Both r/o New Dutta Lane Morabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 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 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3578 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, (2026:JHHC:9656) 2 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 504, 506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is next fixed to 05.05.2026 for appearance of the accused persons and charge has not yet been framed. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were carrying out the construction activity at a plot, the ownership of which is claimed by the informant and when the petitioners saw the informant they rushed towards the informant with a gun along with 4-5 unknown persons and shouted at the informant and threatened to kill him. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Mukhtar @ Md. Mokhtar @ Md. Mukhter & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 877 of 2023 dated 11.12.2023, that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Issac Isanga Musumba & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357, paragraph no.3 of which reads as under:- (2026:JHHC:9656) 3 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that: “383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits ‘extortion’.” Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein, it was held in the facts of that case where in a complaint, there was no mention that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainant, that the offence punishable under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 and in paragraph no.34 of which, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case (2026:JHHC:9656) 4 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 over and above the averments and if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still, none of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable offences, in the absence of any cognizable offences being made out, registration of the FIR in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in law. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in view of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of the offence inter alia punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant he is administratively subordinate; assuming for the sake of argument that the offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code is made out though not admitting, still the cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code having been taken on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police and without any complaint in writing having been filed by any public servant (2026:JHHC:9656) 5 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 concerned, the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the allegation made in the FIR if considered to be true in its entirety are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are: - (1) Accused is a member of an unlawful assembly; (2) The assembly is of five or more persons; (3) Common object of the assembly is one of the five crimes specified in the section; (4) Accused knew of the object. 10. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 743 that in order to constitute the offence (2026:JHHC:9656) 6 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 punishable under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code it has to be established that the accused was member of an unlawful assembly and common object of the unlawful assembly was one of the five objects specified under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation that apart from the petitioners who are the two named accrued persons of the case, 4-5 unknown persons who were allegedly accompanying two petitioners, were having any common object of committing any of the five objects specified under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code, which is a sine qua non to constitute any unlawful assembly and in the absence of any allegation of anyone else than the two petitioners of having committed any overt act and in the absence of any allegation that the persons accompanying the two petitioners were knowing the object of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true, in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits any court taking cognizance of any offence inter alia under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing (2026:JHHC:9656) 7 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant he is administratively subordinate. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that no public servant has made any complaint in writing to the Magistrate. FIR was lodged on the basis of a written report issued by a private person. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code without any complaint in writing being filed by any public servant. Accordingly, the cognizance under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (1) The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (2) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (3) The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security and; (4) Such inducement must be done dishonestly (2026:JHHC:9656) 8 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay & Anr. reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of inducing any person to put in fear to deliver any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security and in the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true, in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. So far as the remaining offences i.e. the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are non-cognizable offences and in the absence of any cognizable offence, an FIR cannot be registered only in respect of non-cognizable offences. 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3578 of 2017 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. (2026:JHHC:9656) 9 Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026 19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th April, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 10/04/2026