(2026:JHHC:815) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1643 of 2024 ------ 1. Siddhartha Sankar Das, aged about 60 years, S/o. Sribatsa Das residing at Flat – 4A, 94 Cinema Road, Durgapur – 1, Richmond Royal, Durgapur (m. corp), P.O. & P.S. Durgapur, District- Barddhaman (WB). 2. Upendra Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o. Gauri Shankar Singh residing at Office Flat, Qtr. No.-345 PO- Katras Garh PS- Katras, Bhatmuran District- Dhanbad … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khemlal Mahato, S/o. Hiralal Mahto, resident of Village – Jahajtand, Niche Basti, PO- Dhanbad, P.S.- Bhowra O.P. (Jorapokhar), District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Sankalp Golswami, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Natha Ojha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.90 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian (2026:JHHC:815) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. The allegation made in the written report basing upon which the said F.I.R. has been registered is that the management of B.C.C.L. is forcibly carrying on mining work of the tenancy land of the informant and causing a loss of billions to the informant. It is further alleged therein that, whenever the informant is carrying on agitation in consonance with the Constitution, the B.C.C.L Management is implicating the informant in false cases and Gunda elements of B.C.C.L. and outsourcing agencies are intimidating and threatening the informant and also assaulting him. Hence, the informant requested the Officer-In-charge of Bhawra (O.P.) under Jorapokhar Police Station to initiate legal action and on the basis of the same, the F.I.R. has been registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of either causing hurt or causing mischief or intentionally insulting anyone or criminally intimidating anyone and in the absence of the same, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this F.I.R. has been instituted only because the petitioners are highly placed officers of the B.C.C.L. Hence, it is (2026:JHHC:815) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is concerned, “public property” has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the said Act which means any property, whether immovable or movable which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of – (i) the Central Government; or (ii) any State Government; or (iii) any local authority; or (iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act or (v) any company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or (2026:JHHC:815) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 (vi) any institution, concern or undertaking which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. and Section 3 of the said Act provides for punishment of the person who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of any mischief being committed in respect of any public property. Hence, 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 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is not made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of having caused any hurt to anybody. So, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing mischief so in the absence of any such allegation, certainly the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. (2026:JHHC:815) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against either of the petitioners of intentionally insulting anyone. So, in the absence of the same, obviously the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation of anyone. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 13. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offence in respect of the F.I.R. is made out in respect of the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding and the F.I.R. against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.90 of 2022, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.90 of 2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. (2026:JHHC:815) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1643 of 2024 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of January, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 15/01/2026