Sadik Bhagal Miyan Ansari @ Sadik Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7557 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7557 Jhar
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Sadik Bhagal Miyan Ansari @ Sadik Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                          (2025:JHHC:36633)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.4633 of 2022
                                          ------

1. Sadik Bhagal Miyan Ansari @ Sadik Ansari, aged about 62 years, son of Late Bhagalu Ansari, resident of 102, village:- Ounra, Aunra, Anwar, P.O:- Ounra, P.S:- Bagodar, Dist:- Giridih

2. Taiyab Ansari, aged about 64 years, son of Late Bhagalu Ansari, resident of 102, village:- Ounra, Aunra, Anwar, P.O:- Ounra, P.S:-

Bagodar, Dist:- Giridih

3. Alam Ansari, aged about 34 years, son of Abbas Ansari, resident of Bagodar, village:- Oura, P.O.- Oura, P.S:- Bagodar, Dist:- Giridih

4. Asif Ansari, aged about 32 years, son of Abbash Ansari, resident of Bagodar, village:- Oura, P.O.- Oura P.S:- Bagodar, Dist:- Giridih ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Koresha Khatoon, aged about 66 years, wife of Karimbax Ansari, resident of Amra, P.O:- Amra, P.S.- Dumri, Dist.- Giridih ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioners       : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
             For the State             : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. (through V.C.)
             For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. P. C. Sinha, Advocate
                                              ------
                                        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, 1973 with the prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal

proceeding including the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with

(2025:JHHC:36633)

Complaint Case No.2123 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has found prima facie case

for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal

Code against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in

criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, deceived the

complainant, who is their sister by telling her that they will give her the

amount of compensation of the joint property belonging to the common

father of the petitioners and the complainant; and by so deceiving her

fraudulently and dishonestly, induced the complainant to put her

thumb impression on the relevant papers but did not pay her share

from the total compensation amount of Rs.1,89,00,000/-. On the basis of

the complaint, statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation

and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against

the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation

against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the dispute

between the parties is a civil dispute which has been given a cloak of

criminal case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the

instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel

for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the

(2025:JHHC:36633)

prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that

the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the

petitioners in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn

affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to

be true in their entirety then the offence punishable under Section 420

read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the

petitioners. It is next submitted that the only contention of the

petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings is that the

allegation against them is false; which cannot be considered by this

Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 an accused person of the case and the veracity of the

evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of

the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

by the High Court as that would be the 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.

7. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be

conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482

(2025:JHHC:36633)

of Code of Criminal Procedure to get into the appreciation of the

evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820

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 particular case being considering." (Emphasis supplied)

8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains

that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of

being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons; deceived the

complainant and dishonestly induced her to put her thumb impression

in the relevant papers for selling the property for gain. The undisputed

fact further remains that if the allegations made against the petitioners

in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation

and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in

their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B of

the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that this is not a fit case where the prayer prayed for by the petitioners