[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ashif Ali Khan @ Ashif Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                            [2026:JHHC:311]




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No.1857 of 2024
                                ------

1. Ashif Ali Khan @ Ashif Khan, Son of Md Taqi Khan, aged about- 49 years, resident of Near Jhanda Maidan, New Barganda, P.O.- New Barganda, P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih.

2. Romesha @ Romaisa, Wife of Asif Khan, aged about- 35 years, Resident of Khan Building, R.K. Mahila College Road, Jhanda Maidan, New Barganda, P.O.- New Barganda, P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih.

                                                  ...          Petitioners
                                     Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Israt Jahan, Wife of Md. Taki Khan @ Dr. M.T. Khan, aged about 39 years, Resident of New Barganda at present resident of Alkapuri, P.O. and P.S.- Pachamba, District- Giridih.

                                              ...       Opposite Parties
                                     With

                                ------

1. Hassan Raja Ansari @ Hasan Raza Ansari, Son of Md. Islam, aged about- 26 years, Resident of Macca Masjid, P.O. and P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih.

2. Saddam Hussain, Son of Ishak Ansari, aged about- 28 years, Resident of Parvatraydih, P.O.- Manikbad, P.S.- Deori, District- Giridih.

3. Dwarika Prasad Mahto @ Dawarika Prasad Mahto, Son of Sukhlal Mahto, aged about- 34 years, Resident of Village- Koti, Mungoranga Mati, P.O.- Penk, P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Bokaro.

4. Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, Son of Suresh Prasad

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

Gupta, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village- Ramdih Basti, P.O.- Sector- IX, P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro.

                                                                ...                 Petitioners
                                               Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Israt Jahan, Wife of Md. Taki Khan @ Dr. M.T. Khan, aged about 39 years, Resident of New Barganda at present resident of Alkapuri, P.O. and P.S.- Pachamba, District- Giridih.

                                                           ...              Opposite Parties
                                               ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Singh, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mayank Mridul, Advocate Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate (all in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions) For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. (in Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024) Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. (in Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024) For the OP No.2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate (in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions)

------

                                          PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-      Heard the parties.

2. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been

filed with the self-same prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

including the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.

1432 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih

whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

summons against the petitioners. Hence, both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant

entrusted her house to the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024

for using the same for his residence only and to carry out his own

business. The petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 was

entrusted with the said house property of the complainant in the year

2018. The petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024, at the time of

entrustment of the said house property, took the same for only some

months and assured that he will vacate the property after some

months. As after one year from the date of occupation, the petitioner

No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 did not vacate the said house. The

complainant and her husband requested the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P.

No. 1857 of 2024 to vacate the said house but the said petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 refused to vacate the house and committed

criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant and her husband

to kill if they insist upon vacation of their house by the said petitioner

No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. Further, the said petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 used the entrusted property in violation of the

legal contract by further sub-letting the property entrusted with the

petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. The petitioner No.2 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 has been arrayed as an accused in this case

only because she is the wife of the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857

of 2024. On the basis of the Complaint, the statement on solemn

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry

witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih found prima

facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406, 447, 504 and

506 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order against

them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions submits that there is absolutely no allegation in

respect of the said offences against any of the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.

1874 of 2024 or the petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024. Hence,

even if the entire allegations made in the Complaint, the statement on

solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry

witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the

offences in respect of which the prima facie case has been found out by

the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih is not made out

against them. It is next submitted that so far as the petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is concerned, the allegations against him are

out and out false. It is then submitted that the undisputed fact remains

that the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is the son of the

husband of the complainant from his first wife, who has been divorced

by the husband of the complainant but the undisputed fact also

remains that he is the own son of the husband of the complainant. It is

further submitted that prior to institution of this case, the petitioner

No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 lodged Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.

16 of 2021 against the complainant and others in which case, police

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

submitted charge sheet finding the allegations to be true and

cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 325, 504,

506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter alia against the

complainant. It is also submitted that the said petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 also filed Original Suit No. 10 of 2020 in the

court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Giridih against the

husband of the complainant and others for declaration of right, title

and interest to the property but in the plaint, in the description of the

property at item No. 2, the name of the place and district has not been

mentioned. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been residing in

the place of occurrence house with his mother in his own independent

house. Hence, it is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners

being false, the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside

against the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No.1857 of 2024 as well. Hence, it

is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

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

counsel for the opposite party No.2 of both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions on the other hand fairly submit that there is no

allegation of entrustment of any property by the complainant to all the

petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 and to the petitioner No.2 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 nor is there any allegation against them of

either intentionally insulting the complainant, criminally intimidating

the complainant or trespassing to the place of occurrence house; but so

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

far as the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the

only contention of the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is

that the allegation against him is false; which is the defence of the

petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 and which the petitioner

No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024, can take during the trial of the case. It

is next submitted that this Court in exercise of its power under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot conduct a mini trial to

ascertain the veracity of the defence of the petitioner to give a finding,

when prosecution evidence is yet to begin and the charge has not yet

been framed. Hence, it is submitted that Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024,

being without any merit, be dismissed, so far as the petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is concerned.

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 as has fairly been submitted by the

learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, that there is no allegation

against all the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 and the petitioner

No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 of being entrusted with any property.

In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be

true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of

the Indian Penal Code is not made out against them. Similarly, there is

absolutely no allegation against them of either committing criminal

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

intimidation or intentionally insulting or committing criminal trespass

and in the absence of such allegations, this Court has no hesitation in

holding that the offences punishable under Section 447, 504, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code are also not made out against all the petitioners of

Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 as well as the petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No.

1857 of 2024. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against

them will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case

where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated

04.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1432 of 2023 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside against

all the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 as well as the petitioner

No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024.

7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order

dated 04.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1432 of 2023 by the

learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, is quashed and set aside

against all the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 1874 of 2024 as well as the

petitioner No.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024.

8. So far as the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is

concerned, the only contention of the said petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P.

No. 1857 of 2024 is that the allegations against him are false. 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 or the veracity of the evidence put

forth by the accused as that would be the job of the trial court as has

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

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

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

Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others 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)"

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 of

committing the offences in respect of which the prima facie case is found

out by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih but the only

contention of the petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is that the

same is false and concocted one. The same is the defence of the

petitioner No.1 of Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 and the petitioner No.1 of

Cr.M.P. No. 1857 of 2024 is at liberty to raise such defence during the

full-dress trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to

With

[2026:JHHC:311]

quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated