Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 414 and 34 IPC relating to stolen iron scrap. The court held no mini trial is permissible at this stage, the defence could not be tested in a Section 482 petition, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2024
------
Nilima Das, aged about 40 years, D/O Prabir Kumar Das, Aadhar no-8148 2657 3181, Director of Pavapuri Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. R/OAt:- Near Jaiswal petrol pump, above Liberty show Room, 1st . Floor, Part-A, Post- Ratu Road, PS- Sukh-deo nagar, DistrictRanchi, Permanent addrerss 67/1/1A, 1st .Floor, Ibrahimpur Road, Jadavpur University, PO+PS- Jadavpur, Kolkata, west Bengal-
… Petitioner
Versus … The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakaldeo Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2024
she was transporting the stolen property in the truck, the same truck was seized by police. Consequent upon the investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet inter alia against the petitioner and vide order dated 07.02.2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2
Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2024
at this stage to verify the defence of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
“ 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)”
3
Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2024
her. Consequent upon which cognizance has also been taken by the learned Magistrate. The only contention of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The veracity of the documents produced by the petitioner can be ascertained only during the full dress trial. The same cannot be done in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Cr.M.P.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of September, 2024 AFR/ Saroj
4
Cr. M.P. No.2094 of 2024
2 issues framed by the court
Can a criminal proceeding and cognizance order be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the accused's defence raises disputed questions of fact?
Whether the High Court can conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence while deciding a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & OthersRelied on¶6
2022 LiveLaw SC 594
Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & OthersRelied on¶7
(2008) 8 SCC 781 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nilima Das
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court