High Court may quash criminal proceedings when no prima facie case is established, and cannot engage in fact-finding or conduct a mini trial at this stage.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with the self-same prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1432 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioners. Hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entrusted her house to the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 for using the same for his residence only and to carry out his own business. The petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 was entrusted with the said house property of the complainant in the year 2018. The petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024, at the time of entrustment of the said house property, took the same for only some months and assured that he will vacate the property after some months. As after one year from the date of occupation, the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 did not vacate the said house. The complainant and her husband requested the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 to vacate the said house but the said petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 refused to vacate the house and committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant and her husband to kill if they insist upon vacation of their house by the said petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. Further, the said petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 used the entrusted property in violation of the legal contract by further sub-letting the property entrusted with the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. The petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 has been arrayed as an accused in this case only because she is the wife of the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. On the basis of the Complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order against them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions submits that there is absolutely no allegation in respect of the said offences against any of the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 or the petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. Hence, even if the entire allegations made in the Complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which the prima facie case has been found out by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih is not made out against them. It is next submitted that so far as the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is concerned, the allegations against him are out and out false. It is then submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is the son of the husband of the complainant from his first wife, who has been divorced by the husband of the complainant but the undisputed fact also remains that he is the own son of the husband of the complainant. It is further submitted that prior to institution of this case, the petitioner No.