[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Hesham Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                              (2026:JHHC:10058)



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 315 of 2020


          Hesham Ahmad, aged 38 years, son of Wasi Ahmad, resident of House
          No. 102, Chuna Shah Colony, Azadnagar, P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-
          Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                                               ....              Petitioner
                                          Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. Ahtesham Alam @ Ehtesham @ Ehaetram Alam @ Ahetram, son of
             Masoor Alam, resident of Holding No.5, Road No. 7, Zakir Nagar
             West, P.O. & P.S.-Azadnagar Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East
             Singhbhum, Jharkhand
                                            ....             Opp. Parties

                                     PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been validly 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 482 of Cr.P.C. with the

prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order

dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Azad Nagar P.S. Case No.

(2026:JHHC:10058)

60 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 386 and 387 of the

Indian Penal Code and also to quash the order dated 19.08.2025

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in

connection with the said case whereby and where under, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has framed

charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 386

and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner from

10.04.2019 to 20.05.2019 at the house of Mujahul Haque, P.S.

Azadnagar, Dist.-Jamshedpur being entrusted with cheque

amount of Rs.10,50,000/- converted the same to his own use and

thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of

the Indian Penal Code. There is further allegation against the

petitioner that at the same day and place the petitioner cheated

the informant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver money to

the petitioner and the other persons with whom the petitioner told

the informant to part with money and thereby cheated the

informant. There is further allegation that at the same day and

place, the petitioner committed extortion by putting the informant

in fear of death and grievous hurt and thereby committed the

offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code

and lastly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner

committed extortion by putting the informant in fear and thereby

(2026:JHHC:10058)

dishonestly induced the informant to deliver Rs.10,50,000/- and

thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 387 of

the Indian Penal Code.

5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,

police registered Azadnagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 and took up

investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police

submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the same the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of

the said offences and subsequently, vide order dated 19.08.2025

framed the charge for the said offence; as already indicated above

in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the

allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between

the parties is a civil dispute and so far, two witnesses have been

examined during the trial but both of them have supported the

case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as

made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the

prayer and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the

police during the investigation of the case found the allegations

made in the FIR to be true and submitted charge sheet against the

petitioner of committing the offence in respect of which charge

has been framed against the petitioner. It is next submitted by

(2026:JHHC:10058)

learned Spl. P.P. that the only contention of the petitioner is that

the allegations against the petitioner are all false but the same is a

defence which the petitioner can take during the trial and the

same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is

then submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the trial of the case has

already started and the prosecution evidence is yet to be

completed and at this stage the quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding will amount to passing a judgment prior to closure of

the case of the prosecution; when the undisputed fact remains that

both the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported

the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted by learned Spl.

P.P. that so far as the delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned,

when the offence is punishable for a punishment which is more

than three years, the delay can be considered only at the time of

the trial and in support of his contention the learned Spl. P.P.

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, paragraph no. 37 of which

reads as under:-

"37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, "The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by

(2026:JHHC:10058)

itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents.....""

(Emphasis supplied)

8. Learned Spl. P.P. next relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Muskan v. Ishaan Khan

(Sataniya) and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355,

paragraph no. 22 of which reads as under:-

"22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised." (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has reiterated the settled principle of law that at the stage of

quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Thus,

the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to

quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider

whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the

accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the power under

Section 482 should not be exercised.

9. 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 available in the record, this Court is of the

considered view that in view of the fact that the allegations

(2026:JHHC:10058)

against the petitioner in the FIR were found to be true by the

police during the investigation of the case and the police has

submitted charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the

offences in respect of which charge has been framed and the trial

of the case has already begun and two of the witnesses examined

by the trial court in this case so far, have supported the case of the