[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Raju Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.145 of 2023
------
Raju Yadav, (aged about 20 years), s/o - Shivnath Yadav, resident of
- Armo Basti, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. - Bokaro Thermal, District-
Bokaro, PIN Code - 829107, State - Jharkhand
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Durgesh Gupta, s/o - Dinesh Gupta, Permanent resident of
village Salempur, P.O. & P.S.- Salempur, District- Devwria, Uttar
Pradesh,
At present resident of Jain Hospital sector 8/C, P.O. - Harla,
P.S. - Harla, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Vishwajeetjee Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
Mr. Vikesh Kumar, 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 the entire criminal
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
proceedings including the F.I.R. of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.76 of
2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1079 of 2022 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner
deceived and thereby induced the informant so deceived to part with
Rs.15,00,000/- by dishonestly and fraudulently promising to ensure the
selection of the informant in Under-19 Cricket Team of Arunachal
Pradesh. The informant, being so deceived, parted with Rs.7,50,000/-
out of which Rs.3,28,900/- was transferred to the account of the
petitioner along with his brother Mukesh and Rs.5,21,100/- was paid in
cash to the petitioner and his brother Mukesh. The informant filed
Complaint Case No.438 of 2022 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat which upon being forwarded to police
under Section 1563 (3) of Cr.P.C., Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.76 of
2022 has been registered and police took up the investigation of the
case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused
Mukesh Yadav is not the brother of the petitioner. But, on being asked
by the Court to the petitioner as to whether Mukesh Yadav also lives in
the same village as that of the petitioner namely Armo Basti and
whether the name of the father of Mukesh Yadav is the same as that of
the petitioner namely Shivnath Yadav, learned counsel for the
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
petitioner submits that he has no information about the same. It is next
submitted that the petitioner along with the informant went to
Arunachal Pradesh for practicing for the Under-19 Cricket Tournament
for selection phase; the petitioner was selected but the informant was
not selected, hence, being jealous, the informant has filed this false case
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the amount of money
in the name of Raju which has been shown to be transferred by the bank
account of petitioner, does not belong to the petitioner. It is also
submitted that the ingredients required to constitute the criminal
offence are not sufficient to constitute the criminal offence even if the
allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true. It is
also submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil
dispute. 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
prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of deceiving
the informant and dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the informant
so deceived to part with huge amount of money and being so deceived
and induced dishonestly and fraudulently by the petitioner, the
informant has parted with huge amount of money which is sufficient to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is also submitted that the only plea of the petitioner is that the
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
allegations against him are false and that plea he can certainly take
during the investigation of the case and in case charge-sheet is
submitted against him and charges are framed against him then during
the trial of the case; but the same is not a sufficient ground to quash the
entire criminal proceedings. 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 there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioner of deceiving the informant with fraudulent and
dishonest intention and inducing the informant to part with huge
amount of money and the informant after being so deceived, has parted
with huge amount of money. It is a settled principle of law that the
economic offence stands in a different footing than other offences so far
as quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is concerned as has been
reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of
Dinesh Sharma versus Emgee Cables and Communications Ltd. &
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 929, particularly in para-23 and
20 of the judgement. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations
made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety
then the offences alleged is made out against the petitioner.
7. The only plea of the petitioner is that the allegations against him
are false and that plea, he can certainly take during the investigation of
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
the case and in case charge-sheet is submitted against him and charges
are framed against him then during the trial of the case.
8. 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.
9. 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
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)
10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer prayed for
(2026:JHHC:1428)
2023:JHHC:44525
by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. is to be acceded in exercise of the
power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th of January, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 21/01/2026
