(2026:JHHC:10058) 1 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 315 of 2020 Hesham Ahmad, aged 38 years, son of Wasi Ahmad, resident of House No. 102, Chuna Shah Colony, Azadnagar, P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.- Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ahtesham Alam @ Ehtesham @ Ehaetram Alam @ Ahetram, son of Masoor Alam, resident of Holding No.5, Road No. 7, Zakir Nagar West, P.O. & P.S.-Azadnagar Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. (2026:JHHC:10058) 2 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 60 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and also to quash the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with the said case whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner from 10.04.2019 to 20.05.2019 at the house of Mujahul Haque, P.S. Azadnagar, Dist.-Jamshedpur being entrusted with cheque amount of Rs.10,50,000/- converted the same to his own use and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. There is further allegation against the petitioner that at the same day and place the petitioner cheated the informant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver money to the petitioner and the other persons with whom the petitioner told the informant to part with money and thereby cheated the informant. There is further allegation that at the same day and place, the petitioner committed extortion by putting the informant in fear of death and grievous hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code and lastly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed extortion by putting the informant in fear and thereby (2026:JHHC:10058) 3 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 dishonestly induced the informant to deliver Rs.10,50,000/- and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Azadnagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the same the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the said offences and subsequently, vide order dated 19.08.2025 framed the charge for the said offence; as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and so far, two witnesses have been examined during the trial but both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the police during the investigation of the case found the allegations made in the FIR to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner of committing the offence in respect of which charge has been framed against the petitioner. It is next submitted by (2026:JHHC:10058) 4 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 learned Spl. P.P. that the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations against the petitioner are all false but the same is a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial and the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is then submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the trial of the case has already started and the prosecution evidence is yet to be completed and at this stage the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding will amount to passing a judgment prior to closure of the case of the prosecution; when the undisputed fact remains that both the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that so far as the delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, when the offence is punishable for a punishment which is more than three years, the delay can be considered only at the time of the trial and in support of his contention the learned Spl. P.P. relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, paragraph no. 37 of which reads as under:- “37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, “The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by (2026:JHHC:10058) 5 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents…..”” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, paragraph no. 22 of which reads as under:- “22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised. 9. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the fact that the allegations (2026:JHHC:10058) 6 Cr.M.P. No.315 of 2020 against the petitioner in the FIR were found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and the police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the offences in respect of which charge has been framed and the trial of the case has already begun and two of the witnesses examined by the trial court in this case so far, have supported the case of the prosecution. So, this is a fit case where the learned trial court be given an opportunity to take a call regarding the merits of the case, instead of quashing the entire criminal proceeding by holding a mini trial which is prohibited in law; as has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th April, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 13/04/2026