Babi Devi @ Baby Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 387 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Babi Devi @ Baby Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                     [2026:JHHC:1963]




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr.M.P. No.1544 of 2023
                          ------

1. Babi Devi @ Baby Kumari, Aged about 49 years, W/o Kashinath Gupta,

2. Arjun Pd. Sah, Aged about - 73 Years, S/o Late Pryag Sah

3. Meena Devi @ Meena Gupta, Aged about 53 years, w/o Ram Bhawan Gupta,

4. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh, Aged about 41 years, s/o Arjun Prasad Sah,

5. Pankaj Kumar, Aged about 44 years, s/o Arjun Prasad Sah, All are residing at Sector No. 21, Plot no. 482, Near Police Station, Yamuna Nagar, Nigdi, P.O.- P.C.N.T., P.S.- Nigdi, Distt- Pune, State Maharastra

6. Ram Bhawan Gupta, Aged about 56 years S/o Late Babu Lal Gupta Resident of R/o Gujarati Mohalla, A.C. Market, Bank More, Shiv Mandir, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, Distt. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

                                           ...             Petitioners
                             Versus
 1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kashinath Gupta, Aged about 50 years, S/o Chandrashekhar Gupta, R/o Nizamat Hussain Road, Near Madarsa School, P.O., P.S.- & District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

                                       ...       Opposite Parties
                             ------

For the Petitioners : Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate

------

                                                                      [2026:JHHC:1963]




                                       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 the Complaint Case No. 673 of

2020 including the cognizance order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar and the entire criminal

proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 673 of 2020

against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were

members of an unlawful assembly and indulged in rioting by using

force and violence in prosecution of common object of such assembly

and the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 caused hurt to the complainant,

committed theft of jewelleries from the house of the complainant,

committed mischief by vandalizing the house of the complainant by

diminishing the value of the articles and intentionally insulted the

complainant to provoke him to commit breach of peace or any offence

punishable in law. On the basis of the Complaint, the statement on

solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry

witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar vide order

dated 15.12.2022 in Complaint Case No. 673 of 2020, passed the

summoning order.

[2026:JHHC:1963]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kahkashan Kausar

@ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2022) 6

SCC 599 and submits therein in the facts of that case where there was a

second F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint that all the

accused persons harassed the complainant mentally and threatened her

of terminating her pregnancy, in the facts of that case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India quashed the F.I.R. of that case. Learned

counsel for the petitioners next submits that the allegations against the

petitioners are false and are general and omnibus in nature. There is no

specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and

the wife of the complainant and other petitioners are relatives of the

petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 has instituted the case

involving the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code against the complainant and also instituted a case for

maintenance. Hence, this false case has been foisted against the

petitioners for wreaking vengeance. It is then submitted that the

opposite party No.2 has been convicted in C.P. Case No. 2077 of 2013

instituted by the petitioner No.1 and has been sentenced and the

appeal has been dismissed with modification in sentence but the

opposite party No.2 has been granted bail in Cr. Revision No. 1574 of

2018 which is pending before this Court. Hence, it is submitted that the

prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be

allowed.

[2026:JHHC:1963]

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior

counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently

oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition and submit that undisputedly, the petitioners

were convicted in C.P. Case No. 2077 of 2013 on 23.04.2018; so, that

could not be a reason for institution of a false case more than two years

after such conviction. It is next submitted that there is direct and

specific allegation against the petitioners of being members of an

unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of such assembly,

having used force and violence by assaulting the complainant causing

hurt to him, committing theft of the jewelleries and money, causing

mischief by vandalizing the house of the complainant and diminishing

the value of the articles and intentionally insulting him to provoke the

complainant to commit breach of peace or any other offence. Hence, it

is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 allegations

against the petitioners of being members of an unlawful assembly,

used force and violence in prosecution of the common object of the

assembly by causing hurt to the complainant, committing theft of

jewelleries and cash, committing mischief by vandalizing the articles of

the house of the complainant and diminishing the value thereof and

[2026:JHHC:1963]

intentionally insulting the complainant provoking him to commit

breach of peace or any other offence.

7. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) is concerned, the

facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case, as there

is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of being

members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of

the assembly, committed rioting and other offences as already

indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment but the

only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against the

petitioners are false; which is a defence certainly the petitioners can

take during the trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground

to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

8. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of

its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot

consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of

the evidence put forth by the accused 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 its power under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon'ble

[2026:JHHC:1963]

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh &

Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594.

10. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that if the

entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in

their entirety, then, the offences in respect of which the prima facie case

has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar is,

in fact, made out against the petitioners; this Court is of the considered

view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in

connection with the Complaint Case No. 673 of 2020 including the

cognizance order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar as well as the entire criminal proceeding

of Complaint Case No. 673 of 2020, as prayed for by the petitioners in

this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be quashed and set aside at

this nascent stage, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being

without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th of January, 2026 AFR/ Saroj

Uploaded on 28/01/2026