Sidheshwar Mahatha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

[ 2025:JHHC:35008]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

Sidheshwar Mahatha, S/o Late Baldeo Mahatha, Resident of Village-Lami Patara, P.O. & P.S. Patan, District- Palamau, presently resided at Sub-Inspector, Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D), Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ......

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Binod Singh, s/o Sri Ram Nagina Singh, Resident of Village-Lemha, P.O. and P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Chatra, at present Residing at Muhalla-Churihar, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶8

….. Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aaksh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.. PP For the O.P.No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha , Adv.

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by learned CJM, Chatra in connection with Complaint case no. 618 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, learned CJM, Chatra found the prima facie case against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the IPC.

¶14

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner on 13.09.2014 caused hurt to the complainant by slapping him and also abused and thereby intentionally insulted the complainant, giving provocation to the complainant to cause breach of peace and to commit other offences. Learned CJM on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn Affirmation,

¶15

1 Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

¶16

[ 2025:JHHC:35008]

¶17

statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the said offences and passed the summoning order. The petitioner though is aware about the summoning order, has avoided to appear before the trial court without any plausible reason.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the non- appearance of the petitioner, who is the sole accused of the case, the said Complaint Case no. 618 of 2014 is running in at the stage of appearance of the accused persons. It is next submitted at the allegation against the petitioner is false and the next date fixed for appearance of the petitioner is 20.11.2025. It is further submitted that even though the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC is not made out.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 569 a nd Submits that in the facts of that case, wherein the complainant of that case sustained multiple injuries, although the complainant alleged that such incident was witnessed by many persons and that he sustained injuries on his hand, the chargesheet does neither refer to any eyewitness other than the complainant’s wife and son nor to any medical report, hence, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal case.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 1088 a nd submits that in the facts of that case, when the accused person of that case filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the complainant and a separate application under Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act for declaring him as the guardian of the person of his minor daughter before the Family Court and in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble

¶21

2

¶22

Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

¶23

[ 2025:JHHC:35008]

¶24

Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR and the summoning order against the petitioner.

¶25

It is further submitted that this case is the counter blast of Sadar P.S. case no. 122 of 2014 instituted by the petitioner against the complainant. It is next submitted that the complainant is having political connections as well as has connections with the antisocial elements, hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶26

Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and a specific allegation against the petitioner of having caused hurt to the informant by assaulting him with fists and slaps and intentionally insulting him by abusing and provoking him to cause breach of peace and commit other offences. It is next submitted that the alleged occurrence, in respect of Chatra Sadar P.S. case no. 122 of 2014 has been instituted, took place on 10.04.2014 in which the complainant allegedly threatened the petitioner and criminally intimidated him but the occurrence of this case is a separate occurrence which took place almost more than five months after the said occurrence.

¶27

It is next submitted by learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 that the only contention of the petitioner that the allegation against him are false, is at best a defence, which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but the petitioner is not a law abiding person and he has evaded appearing before learned trial court for over a decade and has not come to the court with clean hands, hence he is not entitled to any relief under Section 482 of CrPC. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶28

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this court is of the considered view that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of causing hurt to the complainant by slapping and intentionally insulting the complainant by further abusing him by

¶29

3

¶30

Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

¶31

[ 2025:JHHC:35008]

¶32

provoking him to commit breach of peace or any other offence. The contention of the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false, is at best a defence of the petitioner which he can take during the trial of the case.

¶33

It is a settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of its power under section 482 of CrPC by the High Court, as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the state of Madhya Pradesh versus Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.:

¶34

It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by a High Court in exercise of the power under section 482 of CrPC; 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, the relevant portion of which reads as under –;

¶35

“ 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)

¶36

In view of the discussions made above and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not appearing before the trial court for over a decade, though the summoning order was passed on 02.09.2015 and the allegation made against the petitioner prima facie is sufficient to constitute offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by learned CJM, Chatra in connection with Complaint case no. 618 of 2014 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

¶37

4

¶38

Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

¶39

[ 2025:JHHC:35008]

¶40

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed and in view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, all the interlocutory applications, if any pending, are also disposed of being infructuous.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶42

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 3^rd November, 2025 Smita /AFR

¶43

Uploaded on 02/12/2025

¶44

5

¶45

Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2017

Sidheshwar Mahatha v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheshwar Mahatha v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satendra Saah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Jaykant Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Bhuwania Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahali Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand