AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the Court:- I.A. No.11262 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is being taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.
Cr.M.P. No.905 of 2026
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2757 of 2025 whereby and where under the cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners developed love with the daughter of the complainant during subsistence of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with her husband and the proceeding for dissolution of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with her husband was pending. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner No.1 was insisting to marry the daughter of the complainant and the daughter of the complainant gave birth to a child, of which, the petitioner No.1 is the father; though there is no marriage between them. There is also allegation that the petitioners are threatening the complainant to get her daughter married with the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 is the father of the petitioner No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that since the daughter of the complainant is suffering from mental ailments; taking advantage of her extreme delusion, the petitioners made him believe that the complainant is working against the interest of his daughter and the daughter of the complainant started demanding share in the property of the complainant. There is further allegation that on 25.11.2023, the petitioners went to the house of the complainant and demanded a room to live in and forcefully dumped the articles like bed, cooler, fridge and mattress and told that if the complainant would not send his daughter along with the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.1 would stay at the complainant’s house. There is also further allegation that the accused persons gave death threat to the complainant and his family members by telling them that if they did not get the petitioner No.1 married the daughter of the complainant then, the petitioners would make them face dire consequences.
The complainant filed a complaint case; which upon being forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police registered Lalpur P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023 and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 387, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed to 15.09.2026 for the objection regarding discharge petition filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2026:JHHC:221 and submits that in that case, this Court 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 paragraphs-25 of which read as under :-
‘’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 the only allegation against the petitioners of that case is that the petitioners threatened to kill but there was absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of that case that the threatening was made with intent to cause alarm to the informant or to cause the informant to do any act which she was not illegally bound to do or omit to do any act which she was illegally entitled to do; as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat and considering the allegations of ornamental in nature, in the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:13378 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023 INSC 1088 in Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023 dated 28.11.2023, paragraph No.9 of which reads as under:-
“9.As noted earlier, except the statement that ‘they beat up me’ by the complainant no material whatsoever is available on record in regard to the commission of the said offence. The incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2016. In the recorded statement of the second respondent-complainant or in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent there is not even a whisper that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment. Needless to say, that there is no statement – at least that injury report was prepared. In this context, it is also to be seen in respect of the incident, the FIR got registered only on 04.09.2016, that too much after the filing of petition No. 13/2016 by the appellant herein. Above all, as noted earlier, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC is lacking in the chargesheet.”
and submits that the mere statement that ‘they beat up me’ by the complainant, in the absence of any material to suggest that the victim went to the doctor or underwent any kind of treatment is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anyone. In the absence of the same, 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 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is more or less of ornamental in nature because the admitted fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the father of the child gave birth by the daughter of the complainant, so, the demand of the petitioners to solemnize marriage with the daughter of the complainant cannot be termed as criminal intimidation. It is next submitted that in view of the admitted relationship between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the complainant, the petitioner No.1 visiting the house of the complainant or dumping household article like bed, cooler, fridge and mattress and insisting that unless the complainant sends his daughter along with the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.1 would be staying with the complainant’s house, cannot be termed as criminal trespass. It is then submitted that in the absence of any lawful marriage being solemnized between the parties, obviously the daughter of the complainant cannot be termed as the wife of the petitioner No.1; hence, the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that since there is no allegation against the petitioners of putting in fear to the complainant to deliver any property or valuable security or something signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, it cannot be said that the petitioners indulged in extortion. It is next submitted that demand made to a father to send his daughter, who is the mother of the child of the person making the demand, to accompany him, cannot amount to extortion because the daughter of a person cannot be termed as a property or valuable security or something signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, so the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither of offences punishable under Section 498A, 387, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which chargesheet has been submitted by police, is made out against the petitioners nor the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which cognizance as mentioned above has been taken, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned 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 submits that since the petitioners gave death threat to the complainant so, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi in taking cognizance inter alia of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 it is a settled principle of law that the Magistrate, in a case which is based on a Police Report, cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, para-15 of which reads as under:-
“15.The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.”
It is also a settled principle of law that if no offence is made out on the basis of the materials available in the record then, the learned Magistrate even if the charge sheet submitted, may differ with the same and may not take cognizance of the offence even though the charge sheet is submitted alleging commission of certain offences.
Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, the charge sheet was submitted alleging therein that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 387, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is the admitted case of the complainant that no lawful marriage has been solemnized between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the complainant. In the absence of the same, certainly the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. In the absence of any allegation of demand of property by putting the complainant in fear, the offence of extortion is not made out against the petitioners and in the absence of the extortion, the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
As fairly submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing any hurt to anyone; so, in the absence of the same, 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 452 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1, who is admittedly the father of the child given birth by the daughter of the complainant, went to the house of the complainant, dumped bed, cooler, refrigerator, mattress and insisted that unless the complainant sends his daughter with him, he will stay in the house of the complainant.
In view of the admitted relationship between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the complainant, who stays in the house of the complainant; the petitioners going to the house of the complainant with bed, cooler, refrigerator, mattress, cannot be termed as house trespass; more so, in the absence of any allegation that such trespass was made after preparation to hurt, assault or wrongfully restraining any person, the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is more or less ornamental in nature. The exact time and place where such death threat was given, has not been mentioned anywhere.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted or the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi, is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2757 of 2025, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2757 of 2025, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.