[ 2026:JHHC:11466 ] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 491 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 491 of 2025 1. Belmati Kandeyang, age about 39 yrs, D/O Late Basu Kandeyang, 2. Saluka Kandeyang, age about 42 yrs, S/o Late Basu Kandeyang 3. Nimlal Kandeyang, age about 42 yrs, S/o Late Basu Kandeyang 4. Suresh Kandeyang, age about 61 yrs, S/o Shyamlal Kandeyang 5. Anshu Kandeyang, @ Asai Kandeyang age about 67 yrs. D/o Late Basu Kandeyang All (1 to 5) are R/O Village- Murhatu, Tirilgutu, PO Lotapahar, PS-Chakradharpur District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarswati Sundi, age about 45 yrs, W/o Late Vijay Singh Sundi, Vill Karkatta PO Barkella PS Muffasil, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand .….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra , Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Srivastav, Adv. 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 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case no. 212 of 2022 along with the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2023 whereby and where under, learned ACJM, Chaibasa has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant is the elected Mukhiya of Panchayat. The allegation against the petitioners is that they by words spoken made imputation concerning the character of complainant, intending to harm and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of [ 2026:JHHC:11466 ] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 491 of 2025 complainant, indulged in her character assassination by alleging that the complainant, who is a widow, is having illicit relationship with one Balabhadra Sundi. It is contended by the complainant that because of the false imputation, the reputation of the complainant has been harmed and the petitioners are continuing the said incident continuously. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned ACJM found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and passed the summoning order. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are false. It is then submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order basing upon inadequate material in the record to implicate the petitioners in this case. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations made against them are false and the material in the record is inadequate to constitute the offence punishable under section 500 of IPC, are at best the defence of the petitioners, which the petitioners can take during the trial of the case but the same is not the ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is then submitted that such contention of the petitioner are without any merit as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being indulging in making imputation of the worst kind and indulging in character assassination of the complainant, who is not only a widow but who is also an elected ‘Mukhia’ of a Panchayat, and the said imputations were made with ulterior motive deliberately, designed to harm the reputation of the [ 2026:JHHC:11466 ] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 491 of 2025 complainant and such indulging in character assassination of the complainant has, in fact, resulted in harming the reputation of the complainant. It is then submitted that the matter in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 500 of IPC, the definition of which has been provided under section 499 of IPC. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of indulging in, by their words making imputation of worst kind, by alleging that widow-complainant, whose husband was a bank employee but he has died, is having illicit relationship with a particular person, without any basis and the undisputed fact remains that the complainant is the elected Mukhia of the Panchayat. It is needless to mention that such character assassination of a widow in public life, who is an elected Mukhia of the Panchayat will certainly harm her reputation. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Hence, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioners to be acceded in exercise of the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1st April, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 28.04.2026