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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4338

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
TAHURUDDIN ALIAS TAHURUDDIN ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.M.P. 1176 / 2024



##PAGE1##

( 2 0 2 5 : J H H C :3 8 6 8 6 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1176 of 2024

1. Tahuruddin @ Tahuruddin Ansari @ Taharuddin, aged about 51

years, son of late Sk. Yusuf

2. Buddin @ Budhin Ansari @ Kutabuddin @ Kutabuddin Sheikh,

aged about 41 years, son of late Sk. Yusuf

3. Sekh Kamaruddin, aged about 50 years, son of late Shekh Yusuf

All 1 to 3 are resident of Village-Gudri, P.O.-Ichagarh, P.S.-

Ichagarh, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan

.... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Shekh Abdul Latif, aged about 72 years, son of late Sk. Shamsuddin,

resident of Gudri Bara Amra, P.O.-Ichagarh, P.S.-Ichagarh, Dist.-

Seraikella-Kharsawan

…. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : None

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party

no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-

spite of repeated calls.

3. 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 entire criminal proceeding including the

order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief

1

Cr.M.P. No.1176 of 2024

##PAGE2##

( 2 0 2 5 : J H H C :3 8 6 8 6 )

Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435

of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Chandil has found prima facie case for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners in

connivance with their mother sold the property without partition

of the property; in which share is claimed by the complainant.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no

allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any

property and in the absence of the same, the question of dishonest

misappropriation of the property does not arise and in the

absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of

the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation

against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or inducing any

person deceived to part with any property hence, the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the

petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and in the absence of the

same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned

2

Cr.M.P. No.1176 of 2024

##PAGE3##

( 2 0 2 5 : J H H C :3 8 6 8 6 )

counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the

petitioners of intentionally insulting anybody or committing

criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, the offence

punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is

also not made out. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioners that as none of the offences in respect of which

prima facie case has been found by the learned A.C.J.M., Chandil is

made out against the petitioner, either in furtherance of common

intention with the co-accused persons or in criminal conspiracy

with them therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will

amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the

prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes

the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are

sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which

prima facie case is found by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magi

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