(2026:JHHC:7054) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2388 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2388 of 2024 1. Prasita Bose, aged about 40 years, d/o late Prabhat Kumar Bose, r/o Village-Bunglow No.25, Musabani No.1, P.O. & P.S.-Musabani, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 2. Prakash Kumar Kanungo @ Prakash Kanungo, aged about 56 years, s/o late P.K. Kanungo, r/o Village- Musabani No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Musabani, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 3. Badal Lama, aged about 35 years, s/o Prem Prakash Lama, r/o Village- Musabani No.2, P.O. & P.S.-Musabani, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tapas Chatterjee, s/o late Radhanath Chatterjee, r/o Village- Bikrampur, Kasida, Ghatsila, P.O. & P.S.-Ghatsila, Dist.-Singhbhum East (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv S. Kumar, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Govind R. Karan, Advocate : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advocate ….. 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. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila in connection with Complaint Case No. 104 of 2019 whereby and (2026:JHHC:7054) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2388 of 2024 where under, the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila has found sufficient material in the record to make out prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the land belonging to the mother of the complainant in the year 1993 on the basis of a forged sale deed purported to have been executed by the mother of the complainant though the complainant subsequently sold the said land to Basanti Hansda on 24.12.2018 and threatened the complainant to kill him and abused him. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila has found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even assuming for the sake of argument that all the allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against any of the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that (2026:JHHC:7054) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2388 of 2024 the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the materials in the record if considered to be true in their entirety then each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been made out by the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila is in fact, being made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are :- (i) deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation, and (ii) Inducing the person so deceived to part with property; as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 8. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of inducing the complainant to part with any property nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of indulging in any dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and in the absence of these two essential ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that even if the (2026:JHHC:7054) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2388 of 2024 entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against any of the petitioners even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are :- (i) The accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim (ii) The accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim; 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim or anyone else and in the absence of the same, 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 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since none of the offences in respect of which the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila has proceeded against the petitioners is made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the (2026:JHHC:7054) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2388 of 2024 petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila in connection with Complaint Case No. 104 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila in connection with Complaint Case No. 104 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th March, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/03/2026