Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Toppo @ Dilip vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:34520 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1242 of 2023
------
Dilip Toppo @ Dilip, son of Chhatthu Oraon aged about 54 years,
resident of village-Jori, P.O.-Jori, P.S. & District-Lohardaga.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhim Sahu, son of Late Rameshwar Sahu, resident of village BID,
P.O. and P.S.-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kismanti Minj, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lal V.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
: Mr. Pawan Kr. Singh, 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 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report vide Lohardaga P.S.
Case No.66 of 2023 lodged under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,
120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code of the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lohardaga.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner cheated
and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs.40 lakhs
( 2025:JHHC:34520 )
to get a scheme passed regarding plantation of turmeric, ginger and fruit
bearing trees and as a part of deception, the petitioner took the
complainant to the house of the husband of the minister in the Jharkhand
Government namely Luis Marandi. Though, the petitioner promised that
if the scheme will not be passed then he will return Rs.40 lakhs to the
complainant, but he did not return the same, though the scheme could not
be passed. There is direct allegation against the petitioner that on a
subsequent occasion also, the petitioner again deceived and dishonestly
induced the complainant to pay another Rs.40 lakhs to purchase a flat and
though issued a cheque for Rs.40 lakhs, but the same upon being
presented in the bank was dishonored. Complaint Case no.99 of 2023 filed
by the complainant was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga and basing upon the
same police registered Lohardaga P.S. Case No.66 of 2023 involving the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(b)/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of
the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is
next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next
submitted that the opposite party no.2/complainant had earlier lodged
three cases against the petitioner in connection with dishonour of cheques
and in those cases, the petitioner is now on bail. It is next submitted that
the petitioner has also instituted the case against the opposite party no.2.
( 2025:JHHC:34520 )
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 1153 and submits that
therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took note of the long line of
decisions deprecating the tendency to convert the civil dispute into a
criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that this is also a case where a
purely civil dispute has been converted into criminal proceeding. It is
lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that not
only the petitioner has committed cheating and criminal breach of trust,
but also he has committed forgery for the purpose of cheating by creating
false documents, as has been mentioned in para-6 of the complaint. It is
next submitted that since the brother of the petitioner is a high-ranking
Police Personnel, hence, the investigation of the case as yet has not been
completed. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioner of having cheated and dishonestly induced the
complainant to part with Rs.80 lakhs in total. Therefore, it is submitted
that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. 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 direct and specific allegation
against the petitioner of cheating, deceiving and thereby dishonestly
( 2025:JHHC:34520 )
inducing the complainant to part with huge amount of money of Rs.80
lakhs after deceiving him with the aid of the husband of the Minister of
the Jharkhand Government. There is also allegation against the petitioner
of having committed forgery for the purpose of cheating by creating false
document and the investigation of the case is still going on.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been
held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
9. So far as the contention of the petitioner is that the allegation
against the petitioner is false is concerned, the same is a defence which the
petitioner can take at the appropriate stage of the trial. It is also a settled
principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated
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 particular case being
considering. (Emphasis supplied)
( 2025:JHHC:34520 )
10. In view of the discussion made above, since, there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioner of committing serious offences
and the investigation of the case is still going on, hence, this Court do not
find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner
in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of November, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 25/11/2025
