SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Uttam Kumar Mahato @ Uttam Kumar son of Bhuwaneshwar @ Bhuneshwar Mahto – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
Cr.M.P. No.324 of 2025
Decided on : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitish Kr. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate

Criminal proceedings must be quashed when the factual allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of the charged offences, as continuing such proceedings results in an abuse of the court's process.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 341, 406, 417, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Requirement for allegations to satisfy essential statutory ingredients - Where allegations, even if taken as true in their entirety, fail to establish the elements of the offences, retention of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20)

(B) Criminal Breach of Trust - Section 406 IPC - Essential ingredient of entrustment absent - Question of dishonest misappropriation does not arise in absence of entrustment. (Paras 7-8)

(C) Criminal Intimidation and Insult - Sections 504 and 506 IPC - Mere abuse does not satisfy criteria for intentional insult provocative of breach of peace or criminal intimidation intended to cause alarm - Principles regarding ingredients of intimidation must be strictly applied. (Paras 9-12)

(D) Wrongful Restraint and Mischief - Sections 341 and 427 IPC - Necessity of proving obstruction and intent to cause loss through destruction of property - Failure to disclose such acts in allegations warrants quashing. (Paras 14-15, 18-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court order which found a prima facie case for various offences in connection with an alleged land transaction dispute. The complainant alleged non-payment of dues and intimidation by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the complaint lacked the essential factual allegations required to constitute the charged criminal offences.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that none of the ingredients for the charged offences were satisfied. Specifically, it found an absence of entrustment for breach of trust, insufficient evidence for provocation or intent to intimidate, no proof of obstruction, and no allegation of property destruction. The Court determined that the allegations, even if taken as true, failed to make out any of the offences.

Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint, evaluated in their entirety, establish a prima facie case for the charged offences, and whether continuing the proceedings maintains the integrity of the legal process.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed if the record reveals that the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, as the continuation of such a case despite the failure to disclose a crime constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Result: Petition allowed; order of the trial court quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' arguments regarding sufficiency of prima facie evidence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. absence of entrustment negates section 406 criminal breach. (Para 7 , 8)
4. insufficiency of allegations for section 504 and 506. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. no evidence for section 323 causing hurt offense. (Para 13)
6. lack of ingredients for section 341 wrongful restraint. (Para 14 , 15)
7. failure to establish dishonest inducement under section 417. (Para 16 , 17)
8. absence of property destruction for section 427 mischief. (Para 18 , 19)
9. quashing criminal proceedings as abuse of process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.646 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 504, 323, 341, 417, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is at the stage of appearance and charge has not yet been framed by the trial court.

4. The brief fact of the case is that ten years prior to recording of the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant on 04.10.2021, in the year 2010, the petitioners paid Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners have further got the work started on the land. When the complainant asked for paying the remaining money, the petitioners told him to go anywhere he wishes and nothing will happen. It is alleged that on 05.07.2021, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant, abused him and told him that he has to give the land to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro basing on the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, found prima facie case in respect of the offences as already indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of the property nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of any criminal intimidation or intentional insult to the complainant. Further, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt or wrongfully restraining nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of cheating the complainant or anyone else. Further, there is no allegation of commission of any mischief by either of the petitioners. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is also submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has received Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners towards advance for selling his land and this case has been falsely foisted against the petitioners to harass and to misappropriate the advance amount given by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the dispute, at best, may give rise to a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. Learned Add. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top