Manoj Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.03.2020 passed in Protest cum Complaint Case No.114 of 2019, corresponding to Doranda P.S. Case No. 124 of 2016 involving the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 392, 337, 427 and 290/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do know how many witnesses have been examined during the trial but the case is fixed for before charge evidence on 09.12.2025.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly caused grievous hurt to the informant by assaulting him with bricks and stones, broke open the gate of the house of the informant, trespassed to his house, broke glass pane of the window of the informant, causing mischief and loss, vandalized the house of the informant and caused hurt to Sumit and Manoj and also inflicted injury on their leg and committed theft of the mobile handset of the informant.

On the basis of the Protest cum Complaint Petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found prima facie case of the said offences and passed a summoning order.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the wife of the petitioner no.1 lodged Doranda P.S. Case No. 123 of 2016. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police after investigation of the case submitted Final Form hence, the wife of the petitioner no.1 filed Protest cum Complaint case No. 740 of 2017 and on the basis of the said petition, prima facie case was also found for the offence inter alia punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant as well. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing trespass to the house of the informant after preparing to commit offences and they have caused grievous hurt to the informant and his associates and also committed mischief and public nuisance besides committing robbery and looted mobile phone by use of force. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegations against the petitioners are direct and specific of trespassing to the house of the informant after preparing to commit the offence of robbery, mischief, public nuisance and causing hurt by rash and negligent act of endangering human life by breaking the glass of the window pane of the house of the informant.

It is pertinent to mention here that a case and counter case can go together as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. CBI reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.

The only contention of the petitioners is that the allegations against the petitioners are all false.

It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 that the defence of the accused or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court.

It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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)

Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition to accede to the prayer of the petitioners in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.