Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ashok Jha @ Ashok Kumar Jha @ Ashok Ja @ Ashok Kumar Ja, Son of Late Panchanan Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.12.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 24 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 426 of 2010 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance inter-alia against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Further, prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 29.10.2025, passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 5264 of 2025 in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 24 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 426 of 2010, whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner and framed charges inter-alai against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The al
The court found that the petitioner, lacking direct responsibility for the schools' financial management, could not be held liable for the alleged misappropriation or forged documentation.
The court established that serious allegations of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy justify proceeding to trial, and that prior sanction for prosecution is not required for a retired public ser....
The main legal point established is that the presence of the accused at the site of embezzlement and the withdrawal of funds under joint signature can establish criminal liability. Additionally, the ....
The court held that specific allegations in the FIR warranted a trial, as they disclosed a cognizable offence, and the delay in filing the FIR did not negate the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases, and that the court will not be justifie....
The prosecution must show a prima facie case with substantial evidence for charges of misappropriation and forgery; mere suspicion is not sufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
