IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 392 of 2025

Shakti Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Vijay Kumar Singh, R/o At present R/o –village –Rajhara, P.O. –Rajhara Colliery, P.S. –Nawa

Bazar, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Girwar Prajapati, S/o Sri. Ramjanm Prajapati, R/o –At Rajhara

Koti, P.O. –Rajhara Kowari, P.S. –Bishrampur, District –Palamau,

Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate

: Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.07.2024 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Compliant Case No. 505 of 2024 in which case, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 420/506/504 of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took a

loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of six years with promise to pay interest at the rate of 8% to the complainant and it was also promised

by the petitioner that in case he fails to pay the money with interest, he will get a sale deed registered in respect of his land situated by the side of his house but after the time period of six years was over, he neither returned the money nor executed the sale deed and threatened the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420/506/504 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rashmi Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2014) 13 SCC 553 that in para-6 of the same, in the facts of the case, when there was allegation that the complainant met the accused person in the market and demanded back his money, the accused person threatened the complainant, is an absurd and outlandish allegation and went on to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the alleged occurrence took place more than three years prior to institution of the case. So, in order to save the limitation for a money suit, this false case has been instituted to enforce a civil liability. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation about the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 420/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Sec