Criminal proceedings are not intended to settle civil disputes. An offence of cheating requires evidence of initial deception; mere breach of civil duties is insufficient. Furthermore, acts of insult or intimidation must satisfy strict statutory definitions, requiring proven intent to provoke a breach of peace or cause alarm.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opp. Party no. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case no. 1495 of 2017 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 93 of 2015, G.R. case no. 2221 of 2015 including the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed the offence of forgery and have forcibly occupied the school by forging documents and have embezzled an amount of Rs. 1.50 to 2.00 crores; in violation of the prescribed yardsticks of Arya Samaj. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witnesses, learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The complaint filed by Prem Vardhan Prasad was set up by the present opp. Party no. 2 and in Complaint Case no. 2008 of 2019 in which, the opp. Party no. 2 was also Inquiry Witness, has been quashed by this Court vide the judgment dated 18.08.2025 in CrMP No. 285 of 2020 reported in 2025:JHHC:24069.

5. It is next submitted that on the basis of the complaint of the District Education Officer –cum- Receiver of the School, Dhurwa P.S. case no. 08 of 2004 was registered and police submitted chargesheet against the opp. Party no.2 –complainant of this case.

6. It is next submitted that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Jharkhand had dissolved the previous committee running the Arya Samaj and the school and has reconstituted the same. It is next submitted that under the new committee, the petitioner no.3 is the Secretary of the committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer has handed over the management of the school to the newly constituted committee. It is next submitted that, since, the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa was earlier registered with the erstwhile State of Bihar, it was decided to register the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa with the State of Jharkhand and the same has been registered. It is next submitted that the said registration was also necessitated because of the Right to Education Act. It is next submitted that though the opp. Party no. 2- complainant, has superannuated in the year 2008, but he has not vacated his quarter situated in the school campus. It is next submitted that opp. Party no. 2 and others and his associates threatened the Principal of DAV Public School, Dhurwa and in this connection Dhurwa P.S. Case No.131 of 2011 has been registered. It is next submitted that the President of the Committee has also lodged FIR vide Dhurwa P.S. Case No.144 of 2011 against opp. Party no. 2 and others and the police, after investigation of the case, submitted the chargesheet, against the opp. Party no. 2 –complainant. It is next submitted that though, the rival faction of Arya Samaj submitted an application to the Inspector General of Registration, Ranchi for deregistering the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa Soci