[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vidya Devi @ Bediya Devi @ Bidya Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:37145]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2922 of 2023
------
1. Vidya Devi @ Bediya Devi @ Bidya Devi, W/O- Basudeo
Mahto, Aged about 37 years
2. Hemanti Devi, W/O- Lalchand Mahto, Aged about 36 years,
3. Dewanti Devi, W/O- Teklal Mahto, Aged about 38 years
4. Prit Mahto @ Pirat Mahto, S/O- Late Rati Mahto, Aged about
65 years
5. Khiro Mahto, S/O- Late Rati Mahto, Aged about 66 years,
All the residents of village- Karri Khurd, P.O. + P.S.-
Chatrochatti, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash the Complaint (Forest) Case No.
534 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 05.02.2019 as
well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in
connection with the said case in which cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 33-1(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section
[2025:JHHC:37145]
2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has been taken against the
petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 07.06.2018 at
about 6.00 AM, the petitioners in contravention of the prohibition
under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, broke up the forest boundary
pillar and cleared the land for cultivation and for constructing house
over the land in a protected forest area. There is also an allegation that
the petitioners contravened and abetted the contravention of the
provision of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. On the
basis of the prosecution report, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under Section 33-1(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2
of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and ordered for issuance of
summons against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
petitioners have received summons from the trial court but they have
not yet appeared before the trial court. It is next submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are false. The land in question
belongs to the ancestors of the petitioners and their ancestors have
purchased the same by way of sale deed and they used to pay land
revenue to the State Government also. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be
allowed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other
hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this
[2025:JHHC:37145]
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the only contention
of the petitioners is that the allegation against the petitioners are false
which the petitioners can certainly raise at the time of full-dress trial of
the case but in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, this Court ought not to adjudicate the defence of
the petitioners when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence; and
evidence could not be produced by the prosecution, as the petitioners
are absconding for a period of over eight years. Hence, the petitioners
who have no respect for law have no right and otherwise also not
entitled for invocation of the power of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the
defence of the accused person of the case cannot be considered before
the prosecution adduces evidence, as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh v. State
of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029, para-
11 of which reads as under:-
"11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his
alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence;
the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here,
the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt,
OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until
that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of
paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would
invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring
the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution
[2025:JHHC:37145]
is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the
documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not
eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at
06:30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from
12:09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08:30 a.m. A road
journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety
kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be
accomplished within the intervening window. More
importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed
at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of
psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and
the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it
occurs." (Emphasis supplied)
7. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the
petitioners and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused,
cannot be considered in exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court as that would be job of
the trial court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta &
Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.
8. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise
of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot
conduct a mini trial as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda &
Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, 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 application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the
[2025:JHHC:37145]
particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be
true in their entirety, then the offences in respect of which the
cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Bermo at Tenughat is made out against the petitioners. The only
contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against the
petitioners are false. In support of their contention, the petitioners have
filed photocopy of the certain documents which, is not admissible in
evidence.
10. In view of the discussions made above, since the only contention
of the petitioners is that the allegations against them are false, which
can only be adjudicated by the learned trial court in a full-dress trial,
this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to
accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 03rd of December, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 11/12/2025
