(2026:JHHC:5457 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 1. Saraswati Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Kamlesh Lohar, 2. Chanchala Kumari, aged about 18 years, 3. Veena Kumari, aged about 30 years, 4. Anumata Kumar, aged about 22 years, 5. Urjala Kumari, aged about 25 years, 6. Ramila Kumari @ Guria, aged about 22 years, 7. Urmila Kumari, aged about 45 years, Wife of Arjun Lohar All are daughters of Kamlesh Lohar and all are residents of Village Chandandih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kaleshwar Mahto Son of Late Mohan Mahto, resident of Village Manjhidih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi ... Opposite Parties --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Vandana Kumari, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate --------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 14955 of 2025 Heard the parties. This Interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to delete the name of the petitioner no.1-Kamlesh Lohar @ Karam Lohar, petitioner no.2-Ganga Devi @ Gangamani Devi and petitioner no.10-Banmati Devi from the cause title of the Cr.M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 as they died respectively on 18.09.2020, 18.03.2022 and 12.07.2024 during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. (2026:JHHC:5457 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer as prayed forin the interlocutory application is allowed. Registry is directed to delete the name of the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 10 from the cause title of this Cr.M.P. and renumber the remaining petitioners as the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 2924 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations against the petitioners is that petitioners committed theft of the planted paddy crops of the complainant by cutting and taking paddy crops. It is then submitted that the allegation against (2026:JHHC:5457 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 the petitioners is false and petitioners are owners of the property, hence the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer and submit that the O.P. No.2-complainant is the owner of the property, hence all the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate, is in fact made against the petitioners. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made in the Bar and after going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that where the question of possession of the land and crop on the date of occurrence is a matter of considerable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted for having committed theft of crop, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Ekbal Rai & Ors. Vs. Jaldhari Pandey reported in AIR 1972 SC 949. It is also settled principle that where a bonafide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar & Ors. Vs. Abanidhar Roy, reported in AIR 1965 SC 585 as also in the case of (2026:JHHC:5457 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 2892 of 2018 Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao & Anr. Vs. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana & Anr. reported in AIR 1962 SC 586. 6. Now coming to the fact of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners claim legal right to cut crop. Under such circumstances, in view of settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still no offence is made out against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 2924 of 2016 as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2018 in connection with Complaint Case No. 2924 of 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: February 19, 2026 N.A.F.R./Pramanik Uploaded on 09/03/2026.