AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.11739 of 2026 in Cr.M.P. No.1248 of 2026 with I.A. No.11738 of 2026 in Cr.M.P. No.1292 of 2026
Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these interlocutory applications have been filed for early hearing of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.
Since, the hearing of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are taken up today, hence, these interlocutory applications stand disposed of being infructuous.
Cr.M.P. No.1248 of 2026 with Cr.M.P. No.1292 of 2026
Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the self-same prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No.1834 of 2024; by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh has found prima facie against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
The allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the officers of N.T.P.C. engaged the complainant for imparting computer training to the persons to be selected by the N.T.P.C. but neither did they make the payment nor give the work as per the agreement. There is further allegation against the petitioners that on 25.05.2024, the petitioners went to the house of the complainant, did Maarpeet and threatened the complainant to implicate him in a case and also threatened that if the complainant comes again to the office of N.T.P.C. then he will be sent to jail.
To a question from the court, the complainant stated that he intends to have employment with the N.T.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepmala & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:19474 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1102 of 2024 and submits that therein this Court in paragraph-8 and 9 which reads as under:-
“8.Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC are as follows:-
(i)the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim,
(ii)the accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would cause hurt to the victim.
9.It is pertinent to mention here that 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, has held that the allegation that the marpit was done without any injury been inflicted, will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.”
this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the allegation of Maarpeet without any injury being inflicted, will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is next submitted that the petitioners, being officers of N.T.P.C., there is no rhyme or reason for them that they will go to the house of the complainant and will do Maarpeet with him. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prem Nath Choudhary & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:1458 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022 and submits that this Court in that case relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph-24 and 25 of which reads as under:-
“24.Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .
“25.Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:
“… The prosecution must prove:
(i)That the accused threatened some person.
(ii)That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;
(iii)That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.”
(emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.”
and submits that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners insulted the complainant to provoke him to cause breach public peace or any other offence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners threatened the complainant for causing an alarm, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and this case has been instituted against them for the purpose of wrecking vengeance and to pressurize the petitioners to offer a job to the complainant in N.T.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, be allowed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing in respective cases and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer made in both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety then all the offences in respect of which prima facie has been found by the learned Magistrate, is in fact, made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed.
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 so far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as already discussed above, the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is that ‘the accused voluntarily cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim.’
Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant or anyone else and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence is that the insult inflicted must of such magnitude that will cause the victim to commit breach public peace or any other offence.
Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners that the insult, if any, of the complainant was of such a nature as was likely to cause breach of public peace or any other offence and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence is that the threatening must be of such a nature as was intended to cause alarm in the mind of the victim.
Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of threatening the complainant in a manner to cause alarm in his mind and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners rather the admitted fact of the case goes to show that the case was instituted for the purpose of wrecking vengeance in order to pressurize the petitioners to facilitate offering of a job to the complainant with the N.T.P.C.
In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case, is in fact made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No.1834 of 2024, be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No.1834 of 2024, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.