IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 37 of 2022

1. Anuj Kumar Trivedi @ Anuj Kumar, aged about

42 years.

2. Prabhakar Trivedi @ Prabhakar Kumar Triwedi, aged about 36 years

3. Prem Prakash Trivedi, aged about 29 years, All S/o Late Srikant Triwedi, R/o PHED Colony, Kanke, P.O. and P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi.

..... … Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand.

2. Amit Kumar, S/o Jaykant Pathak, R/o Furhura Toli, P.O. and P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi.

..... … Opposite Parties --------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate.

: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate.

: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate.

------

27/ 11.02.2026 This matter has been assigned by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to this Court, that’s is how, this petition has been listed before this Bench.

2. Heard learned counsel and learned amicus curiae for the petitioner, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2019, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. The complaint case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2, alleging therein that on 20.02.2019, at about 09.00 A.M., the informant was going to office, the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, signal the informant near Sukuhutu, Kanke Ring Road, over bridge. When the informant stopped the motorcycle all the accused persons forcibly pulled out the informant and started assaulting him. In course of assault, the informant started shouting for help, on listening to the hue and cry of the informant, Dharmshila Devi, Karan Kumar, Jaykant Pathak and few person were came to save the informant. The petitioners started fleeing away and during course of running snatched the bag of O.P. No. 2 which was containing Rs 50,000/- and important documents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case has been solemnly affirmed and the place of occurrence was said to be the Ring Road, Kanke, Ranchi and it has been stated that when the O.P. No. 2 was going to his duty through the said Ring Road all along and at that place family members of the O.P. No. 2 reached and rescued the O.P. No. 2. He next submits that the O.P. No. 2 is the brother-in-law of all these petitioners. He also submits that the sister of the petitioners namely Nira Kumari has lodged an FIR, being Kanke P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against O.P. No. 2 and his family members and thereafter as a retaliation, several cases have been lodged against these petitioners by the O.P. No. 2 and his family members. He then submits that several complaint cases / police cases have been lodged against the petitioners and their family members and details of which are produced hereinbelow:-

“1. Sadar P.S. Case No. 278 of 2019

2. Sadar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020

3. Doranda P.S. Case No. 279 of 2019 (Kanke P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021)

8. Complaint Case No. 2181 of 2022

9. Kanke P.S. Case No. 160 of 2022

10. Complaint Case no. 1251 of 2021

11. Complaint Case no. 8411 of 2023”

6. In these backgrounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that frivolous cases have been filed against the petitioners and further the occurrence of the present complaint has taken place on 20.02.2019, wherein the complaint case has been filed on 27.03.2019. On these grounds he submits that the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the matter is arising out of a complaint case. She next submits that the malicious prosecution can only be tested after the trial.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 has also opposed the prayer and submits tha