(2026:JHHC:3067) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2058 of 2024 ------ 1. Angad Kumar Mishra, aged about 39 years, S/o. Vashist Mishra, residing at Arsanday, S.B.I. Gokul Marg, PO- Kanke, PS- Kanke, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Akhileshwar Prasad, aged about 39 years, S/o. Om Prakash Saw, residing at New Madhukam, Sri Ram Nagar, PO- Hehal, PS- Suklhdeonagar, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o. Jawahar Lal Gutpa, residing at 24, Kurmidih, Bajrangi Nagar, Near Mahatma Gandhi School, Railway Colony, Radhanagar, PO & PS- B.S. City, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) 4. Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o. Balmukund Mishra, residing at Mandir Marg, Vrindavan, Chirandi, Boreya, PO Boreya, PS Bariatu, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Kumar Nishant, aged about 41 years, S/o. Ujjwal Kumar, residing at 2nd Last House, Road No.N5-E1, Boreya Road, Vrindavan Colony, Kanke, PO- Boreya, PS- Kanke, District - Ranchi … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rashid Ansari, aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Haji Mulslim Ansari, residing at Sahu Bagicha, Sukurhatu, PO & PS- Kanke, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. (Through Video Conferencing) For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no. 2, no one turns up on behalf of O.P. No.2. (2026:JHHC:3067) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 3. 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 in connection with Complaint Case No. 5432 of 2023, including the order dated 02.01.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 30.05.2023 at about 9 A.M. the petitioners were measuring place of occurrence land, the complainant asked them as to why they are measuring the place of occurrence land; upon which the petitioners said that they have purchased the said land from the sister of the complainant, to which complainant replied that as the land belongs to him, then how the petitioners could purchase the same from his sister. Thereafter, the accused persons did marpit, abused the complainant and in the meanwhile as the brother of the complainant and other persons assembled in the place of occurrence, the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the complaint, statement on Solemn Affirmation of the complainant and the inquiry witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has found prima facie case for the said offences to proceed against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Muskan Kumari @ Dipa Devi @ Muskan (2026:JHHC:3067) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 Roy and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2025 JHHC 35338 in paragraph 4 of which, this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2023 INSC 1088 paragraph 9 of which reads as under: "9. As noted earlier, except the statement that 'they beat up me' by the complainant no material whatsoever is available on record in regard to the commission of the said offence. The incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2016. In the recorded statement of the second respondent-complainant or in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent there is not even a whisper that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment. Needless to say, that there is no statement - at least that injury report was prepared. In this context, it is also to be seen in respect of the incident, the FIR got registered only on 04.09.2016, that too much after the filing of petition No. 13/2016 by the appellant herein. Above all, as noted earlier, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC is lacking in the chargesheet." (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the allegation that the words “they beat me of” by itself, will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code . 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rita Kumari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2025 JHHC 22702 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar (2026:JHHC:3067) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 Pradesh and another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph 24 of which read as under: "24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715)" (Emphasis supplied) and submits that to constitute the offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence and the mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients. It is further submitted that in this case in the absence of any allegation of any intentional insult was of such a degree that should provoke the complainant to break public peace or to commit any other offence, the offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhushree Datta (2026:JHHC:3067) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 vs. State of Karnataka and Another and allied case, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 612 para 24 of which reads as under: “24. A perusal of Section 504 IPC reveals that a mere act of insulting someone does not fulfil its requirements; the insult must be of such a nature that it provokes the person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in criminal conduct. Therefore, to establish the ingredients of Section 504 IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on the available material, that there was intentional insult with the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of the public peace or the commission of any other offence.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the mere allegation that the accused person came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44, which reads as under: - “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz: (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) (2026:JHHC:3067) 6 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 9. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false but even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, for the sake of argument, still neither the offence punishable under Section 323 nor the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC is made out. 10. It is next submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case because of admitted dispute relating to land as regard to the claim of ownership of land between the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka and another (supra) paragraph 18 of which reads as under: "18. What emerges on a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions is that, for a conviction under Section 323 IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt i.e. bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused." and submits that as the complainant merely stated that marpit was done there is no averment that actual fight was caused with the complainant. Hence, the ingredient of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr. M.P., be allowed. 13. Learned Spl. P.P on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that (2026:JHHC:3067) 7 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence in respect with the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case, hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made in the Bar and going through the materials in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only victim in this case is the complainant. The complainant in his statement under the Solemn Affirmation has categorically stated that marpit was done and he has not stated of any hurt being caused to him. The ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows: "i) Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to the victim, ii) The accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that it would thereby cause hurt to the victim." 15. After going through the facts of the case, there is absolutely no material in this record to suggest that any bodily pain, decease, or infirmity was caused to the victim by the petitioners. In the absence of victim/complainant in the Court, this Court is of the considered view that even if the materials in the record are considered to be true in their entirety, still the same falls short from constituting the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is neither any specific allegation that the (2026:JHHC:3067) 8 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 petitioners intentionally insulted the complainant or anyone else nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of giving any provocation to the complainant or anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the complainant or anyone else to break public peace or commit any other offence and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 17. In view of the discussions made above, since neither of the offence in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case, is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the 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 dated 02.01.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 5432 of 2023, be quashed and set aside. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (2026:JHHC:3067) 9 Cr. M.P. No.2058 of 2024 Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 5432 of 2024 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 19. In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd of February, 2026 AFR/ Pramanik Uploaded on 10/02/2026