IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4010 of 2022 Chitesh Prawal, aged about 36 years, s/o Dipak Srivastava, resident of At-Jailhata, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Rakesh Kumar, s/o Rameshwar Choudhary, at Present r/o At-

Medical Collage Assistant Professor, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau and permanent r/o Village-Udaypur, P.O. & P.S.-Sajholi, Dist.-Rohtash, Bihar …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.

(Through Video Conferencing)

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no.98 of 2022 dated 31.03.2022 against the petitioner filed in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 815 of 2022. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the said case and consequential relief.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with the informant and paid advance but subsequently, the petitioner demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for giving the consent for sale and threatened that if without giving Rs.20,00,000/- to him the informant purchases the property from the father of the petitioner, the petitioner will not allow the informant to enter into his house.

4. On the basis of the report submitted by the informant, police registered Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has taken cognizance of the said offences.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of cheating or dishonestly inducing anybody to part with any property hence, in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly misappropriating with any entrusted property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out either. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of entering into any criminal conspiracy and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that if the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR, case diary and charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, then all the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken; is in fact made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that t