Jharkhand High Court
Tanweer Ahmad @ Tanveer Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:30907)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1566 of 2023
1. Tanweer Ahmad @ Tanveer Ahmad, aged about 35 years, s/o late
Dr. Mustaque Ahmad
2. Farha Shahin @ Farha, aged about 30 years, w/o Tarique Ahmad
Olai
3. Shirin Shahin @ Shireen Shahin, aged about 30 years, w/o late
Shakib Usmani
4. Tarique Ahmad Olayee @ Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Ahmad Olai @
TariquOlayee
Petitioner no.1 to 4 are r/o Karim Manzil, Sattar Colony Road,
Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi
5. Syed Mohammad Wasim @ S.M. Wasim, aged about 55 years, s/o
late S.M. Halim, r/o Nishat House, Haroon Nagar II, P.O. & P.S.-
Phulwari Sharif, Dist.-Patna (Bihar)
6. Nilofar Ahmad @ Nilofar, aged about 54 years, w/o Mustaque
Ahmad, r/o Arvindo Nagar, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi
....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Syed Jawed Parvez, aged about 62 years, s/o late Syed Mohammad
Karim, r/o Karim Manzil, Sattar Colony Road, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.-
Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
: Ms. Sweety Topno, Advocate
(2025:JHHC:30907)
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for
early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up
today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
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 order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2023 with
all consequences in connection with Complaint Case No. 6481 of
2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the mother of the petitioner no.1
is the sister of the complainant. The complainant gifted 5.5
decimals of land to the mother of the petitioner no.1, who is the
co-accused but during the pendency of this case she has died. The
allegation against the mother of the petitioner no.1 is that she
encroached upon the other land of the complainant and
constructed a house without the approval of the plan of the
(2025:JHHC:30907)
building by the competent authority. On 09.09.2021 the
complainant was assaulted. There is further allegation that the
mother of the petitioner no.1, during her lifetime, has forged some
documents and made the said 5.5 decimals of land gifted to her by
the complainant, to be 16 decimals and was trying to sell the land
of the complainant and on 10.07.2022 the accused persons of the
case attacked the complainant by putting a knife at his throat and
told that they will usurp the 16 decimals land of the complainant
and will throw him after killing him and outraged modesty of the
wife of the complainant.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 341 of
Indian Penal Code and the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that charge has not yet been framed in the said Complaint
Case No. 6481 of 2022 and the case has been fixed to 18.10.2025 for
consideration of framing of charge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhushree
Datta vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC
105 and submits that in the facts of that case when the
complainant merely stated that the complainant was forcibly
ejected from the company's office by security personnel, who
allegedly attempted to assault, physically harass and threaten her
(2025:JHHC:30907)
with dire consequences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
observed that the complaint does not directly attribute any
voluntary act of causing hurt to the complainant by any of the two
accused of that case and went on to hold that the offence
punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is not made
out.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek
Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023
INSC 1088 wherein, in the facts of that case except the statement
that "they beat up me" by the complainant, no material was
available in the record in regard to the commission of the offence
and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the
basic ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 323 of
Indian Penal Code is lacking in that case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 and submits that in paragraph
no. 11 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that in that case as in respect of the issue involved which
was of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the
jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it was
pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the
attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal
(2025:JHHC:30907)
proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants of
that case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Sandhya Bhagat & Anr. vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1550 of 2023 dated
28.08.2023 wherein, considering the facts of that case, this Court
observed that the allegation regarding the offences punishable
under Sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code has been made
ornamentally to make the case a serious one. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant-
opposite party no.2 has not approached the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi with clean hands, by suppressing the
fact that prior to institution of the complaint case, the complainant
filed Original Suit No. 220 of 2022 against the mother of the
petitioner no.1 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I,
Ranchi. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil
dispute and there is no allegation of entrustment of any property
against the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the offence
punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made
out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer and submits that the allegation made in the complaint,
(2025:JHHC:30907)
statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the
statement of the inquiry witnesses are sufficient to constitute the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 341 of Indian
Penal Code. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 and submits that in
paragraph no. 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that there is no bar to
simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings and if the element of
criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on
the same facts and the fact of the civil remedy has already been
availed of by the complainant ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to
quash an FIR. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that in the statement on solemn affirmation the complainant has
stated in paragraph no.3 that on 09.09.2021 all the petitioners
attacked him and assaulted him but he has contradicted the same
in paragraph no.11 by telling that the occurrences took place with
him on 02.09.2021, 06.09.2021 and 10.07.2022 but did not
specifically state any occurrence taking place on 09.09.2021.
Further, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of
committing any specific act or omission and the allegations
(2025:JHHC:30907)
against them are basically general and omnibus in nature and the
facts and circumstances of this case indicates that because of the
admitted civil dispute between the parties, of course which was
suppressed in the complainant, this criminal case has been
instituted as a weapon of harassment to the petitioners.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against
any of the petitioners of entrustment of any property nor there is
any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted
property. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that even if the entire allegations are considered to be
true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406
of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 and 341 of
Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no specific act of
omission or commission attributed to any of the petitioners nor
there is any specific date except 09.09.2021 as mentioned in
paragraph no. 3 of the statement on solemn affirmation of the
complainant but as already indicated above, the same has been
contradicted in paragraph no.6 of the same statement on solemn
affirmation. Further though in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint of
Original Suit No. 220 of 2022, the complainant has mentioned that
on 02.09.2021 some of the petitioners misbehaved to the
complainant and manhandled him and quarreled with him but
there is no reference of any occurrence which took place on
(2025:JHHC:30907)
09.09.2021 though the said Original Suit No. 220 of 2022 was filed
on 09.05.2022 before filing this complaint on 22.07.2022. Further,
there is an inordinate delay of about 10 months in filing the
complaint for a simple occurrence of assault and wrongful
restraint which allegedly took place on 09.09.2021.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit
case where the order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2023 with all
consequences in connection with Complaint Case No. 6481 of 2022
be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
14. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2023 with
all consequences in connection with Complaint Case No. 6481 of
2022 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 7th October, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 10/10/2025
