Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:16468)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.299 of 2025
------
Prakash Singh, S/o Narendar Singh, aged about 45 years R/o Near
Chuna Bhatta, Bandgari, Dipatoli, PO- Bariatu, PS- Sadar, District-
Ranchi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ranjit Singh S/o Late Lal Vijan Singh, R/o Village Hambai, BIT
More, P.O. & P.S. Mesra, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet
no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including
the F.I.R. being Sadar (Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (2), 319 (2), 336 (2), 338, 340 (2),
61 (2) (a) of the B.N.S., 2023.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused Shailendra
Rai, entered into an agreement with the informant to sell 94.09 decimals of land
out of which 86 decimals of land has been mortgaged to co-accused for
Rs.1,32,48,000/-. The further allegation is that subsequently the co-accused
(2025:JHHC:16468)
Shailendra Rai executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and on
the basis of power of attorney, the petitioner illegally and forcibly occupied the
land in question and attempted to construct boundary wall over there.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Jeetendra Tibrewal vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.
(Cr.) No.173 of 2025 dated 06th March, 2025 and submits that in that case this
Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported
in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the
ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in para-18 which reads as
under:-
Section 420 IPC
18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of
cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of
"cheating" are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by
any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to
either deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person
so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not
do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property."
and submits that in the absence of any allegation of cheating anybody
and thereby dishonestly inducing anybody to part with any property, the
offence punishable under Section 318 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out.
6. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the
petitioner of being entrusted with any property, the offence punishable under
Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out.
(2025:JHHC:16468)
7. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the
petitioner that he has impersonated for someone else, the offence punishable
under Section 319 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out.
8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023
is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely
no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document and in the
absence of the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 336 (2) nor
the offence punishable under Section 338 or 340 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made
out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that as none of the offences in
respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner being
made out, the continuation of the F.I.R against the petitioner, will amount to
abuse of process of law.
9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
10. 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 there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly or
fraudulently inducing anybody to part with any property and in the absence of
the same, the offence punishable under Section 318 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not
made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any entrustment of any
property to the petitioner and dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted
property, the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not
made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation that the
petitioner impersonating himself as someone else, the offence punishable under
(2025:JHHC:16468)
Section 319 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner and in
the absence of any false document having been created by the petitioner, the
offence punishable under Section 336 (2) and 340 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is also
not made out against the petitioner.
11. In the absence of any of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. of this
case has been registered, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of this F.I.R. against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process
of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the
F.I.R. of Sadar (Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024, as prayed for by the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. of Sadar
(Mesra OP) P.S. Case No.564 of 2024 is quashed and set aside against the
petitioner.
13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of June, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
