Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:37905]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.83 of 2024

------

Vijay Kumar Singh aged about 62 years Son of Late Baleshwar Prasad Singh resident of Sinki Bhawan Canary Hill Road, Near P.T.C. Road, P.O. Korrah P.S. Sadar (Korrah) District Hazaribag.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Korrah (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 852 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3495 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation of the case finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true.

¶13

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner along with the coaccused persons has created the false document and committed forgery

¶14

1 Cr. M.P. No.83 of 2024

¶15

[2025:JHHC:37905]

¶16

by tampering with the documents relating to the Khas Mahal land and by making false entry therein after manipulating the documents. Police after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The petitioner is a practicing advocate at Hazaribagh for the last 30 years. He has been victimized by the authority. The FIR has been lodged to humiliate the petitioner and his family members. It is next submitted that the petitioner has simply identified the signature of the co-accused namely Tushar Saw and in order to pressurize the petitioner to vacate the land where the petitioner is residing for more than 30 years, this case has been foisted against the petitioner. The FIR was not lodged against Baleshwar Prasad Singh- father of the petitioner and Shiv Kumari Singh – mother of the petitioner. The allegations which have been made by the prosecution is that in order to grab the Khas Mahal land, the petitioner committed the forgery. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of committing forgery of the documents relating to Khas Mahal land in the concerned revenue record and the allegations against the petitioner are found to be true

¶19

2 Cr. M.P. No.83 of 2024

¶20

[2025:JHHC:37905]

¶21

during the investigation of the case; basing upon the charge sheet submitted, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag has taken cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶22

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of committing forgery of the revenue records relating to Khas Mahal land in order to illegally continue in possession of the place of occurrence land; which admittedly does not belong to the petitioner.

¶23

It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court as that would be job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 .

¶24

It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 , the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶25

“ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal

¶26

3 Cr. M.P. No.83 of 2024

¶27

[2025:JHHC:37905]

¶28

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)”

¶29

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of forgery for the purpose of cheating by tampering with the documents relating to Khas Mahal land in the concerned land revenue record in order to be in illegal possession of the land over which he has no title. The only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations against him are false which can only be considered by the trial court as a defence plea during the trial.

¶30

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶32

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶33

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16^th of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj

¶34

Uploaded on 23/12/2025

¶35

4 Cr. M.P. No.83 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Nishikant Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit D Rozario Vs the State of Jharkhand