[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:36079)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1693 of 2023
1. Manoj Oraon, son of Lt. Koka Oraon, aged 30 years, religion-Sarna,
resident of Village/Mohalla Parastoli, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi
2. Dipak Kerketta, son of Sri Kallu Kerketta, aged 28 years, religion-
Hindu, resident of Village/Mohalla Parastoli, Oraon Kocha, P.O. &
P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
3. Md. Hashim @ Hashim Abbas, son of Sri Md. Abbas, aged 45 years,
religion-Muslim, resident of Village/Mohalla Parastoli, Oraon Tola,
P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
4. Sumit Gari, son of Shri Jagarnath Gari, aged 30 years, religion-
Hindu, resident of Village/Mohalla Parastoli, Oraon Kocha, P.O. &
P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Amrit Minz, son of Lt. Jaipal Minz, Religion-Christianity, resident
of Dibdih, S.P. Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
(Through Video Conferencing)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Satyendra Kr. Singh, 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order
(2025:JHHC:36079)
taking cognizance dated 05.03.2020 passed in Protest cum
Complaint Case No.114 of 2019, corresponding to Doranda P.S.
Case No. 124 of 2016 involving the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 448, 392, 337, 427 and 290/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
do know how many witnesses have been examined during the
trial but the case is fixed for before charge evidence on 09.12.2025.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were
the members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the
common object of the assembly caused grievous hurt to the
informant by assaulting him with bricks and stones, broke open
the gate of the house of the informant, trespassed to his house,
broke glass pane of the window of the informant, causing mischief
and loss, vandalized the house of the informant and caused hurt
to Sumit and Manoj and also inflicted injury on their leg and
committed theft of the mobile handset of the informant.
5. On the basis of the Protest cum Complaint Petition, statement of
the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the
inquiry witnesses, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi found prima facie case of the said offences and passed a
summoning order.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations against the petitioners are all false and the wife of the
petitioner no.1 lodged Doranda P.S. Case No. 123 of 2016. It is
(2025:JHHC:36079)
next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
police after investigation of the case submitted Final Form hence,
the wife of the petitioner no.1 filed Protest cum Complaint case
No. 740 of 2017 and on the basis of the said petition, prima facie
case was also found for the offence inter alia punishable under
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant as
well. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioners of committing trespass to the house of the
informant after preparing to commit offences and they have
caused grievous hurt to the informant and his associates and also
committed mischief and public nuisance besides committing
robbery and looted mobile phone by use of force. Hence, it is
submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit be dismissed.
8. 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 the allegations against the petitioners are direct
and specific of trespassing to the house of the informant after
preparing to commit the offence of robbery, mischief, public
nuisance and causing hurt by rash and negligent act of
endangering human life by breaking the glass of the window pane
of the house of the informant.
(2025:JHHC:36079)
9. It is pertinent to mention here that a case and counter case can
go together as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. CBI reported in (2001) 6 SCC
181.
10. The only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations
against the petitioners are all false.
11. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501
that the defence of the accused or the veracity of the evidence put
forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that
would be job of the trial court.
12. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled
principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high
court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant
portion of which reads as under :-
"Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually
conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible
at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in
a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by
the High Court in exercise of power under Section
482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the
(2025:JHHC:36079)
application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court
cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
13. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in
this criminal miscellaneous petition to accede to the prayer of the
petitioners in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
14. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 2nd December, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 08/12/2025
