(2026:JHHC:5457) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 1. Saraswati Devi wife of Kamlesh Lohra @ Karam Lohra 2. Sarla Kumari 3. Veena Kumari 4. Charki Kumari 5. Urjala Kumari 6. Ramila Kumari @ Gudiya Kumari @ Gudia 7. Nirla Kumari Petitioner Nos. 4 to 9, all are daughters of Kamlesh Lohra @ Karam Lohra 8. Kamli Devi @ Samli Devi wife of Atul Lohra All are residents of Village Chandandih, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu (Rahe O.P), District Ranchi ... 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 (Rahe O.P.), District Ranchi ... Opposite Parties --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abinesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate --------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. I.A. No. 14954 of 2025 This Interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to delete the name of the petitioner no.2 from the cause title of this Cr.M.P. as the petitioner no.2-Ganga Devi @ (2026:JHHC:5457) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 Gangamani Devi has died on 18.03.2022 during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Considering the aforesaid fact, the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this interlocutory application is allowed. Registry is directed to delete the name of the petitioner no.2 from the cause title of the Cr.M.P. and renumbered the present petitioners Nos. 3 to 10 as the petitioner no. 2 to 9. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 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 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 333 of 2016 arising out of Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No. 97 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 6205 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 379, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. (2026:JHHC:5457) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 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 the petitioners is false and petitioners are owner 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 out 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 the settled principle that where a (2026:JHHC:5457) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 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 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. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Protest cum Complaint Case No. 333 of 2016 arising out of Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No. 97 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 6205 of 2014 as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. (2026:JHHC:5457) 5 Cr. M.P. No. 3586 of 2017 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2017 passed in Protest- cum-Complaint Case No. 333 of 2016 arising out of Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No. 97 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 6205 of 2014 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.