Mere allegation of 'marpit' without evidence of hurt fails Section 323 IPC ingredients; abuse sans provocation for public peace breach insufficient for Section 504 IPC. Quashing under Section 482 CrPC apt if essentials absent despite assuming facts true. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. 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.

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 Roy and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another , 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 , 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 , 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 Pradesh and another , (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph 24 o