Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:5805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3687 of 2023

------

Ashwani Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Sick Line Road, Gomoh, Near Pani Tanki, P.O.Gomoh, P.S.- Hariharpur (Gomoh), District- Dhanbad.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ranti Devi, wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh,

¶9

Poonam devi, Wife of Amit Kumar,

¶10

Both resident of New Colony, Sick Line, Gomoh, Railway Qtr. No. 436/D-Block, P.O.- Gomoh, P.S.- Harihar (Gomoh), DistrictDhanbad.

¶11

… Opposite Parties

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee @ Prabir Chattterjee, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. ------ P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad whereby and where under the revision application has been dismissed; which was filed against the order dated 02.04.2022 passed in C.P. Case No.1029 of 2021 by the learned

¶16

¶17

Cr. M.P. No.3687 of 2023

¶18

2026:JHHC:5805

¶19

Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.

¶20

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner-complainant filed Complaint Case No.1029 of 2021 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad alleging therein that the proposed accused-opposite party No.2 of this Cr.M.P. being Ranti Devi; though is not the legally married wife of his father who was employed with the Indian Railway, but the name of Ranti Devi was entered as nominee in the nomination form of his father. Ranti Devi used to live with the father of the complainant. Ranti Devi reduced her actual age in the nomination form. The opposite party No.3 herein namely Poonam Devi is the daughter of Ranti Devi. The complainant further alleged that opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed forged documents for getting benefits from the Indian Railways. The learned Magistrate considering the complaint, statement and solemn permission of the complainant and the testimony of the inquiry witnesses found that no offence is made out against the accused and dismissed the complaint.

¶21

The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.71 of 2022 considered the materials available on record and held that the only allegation that was made out against the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is that they have declared their age to be different on different occasions and as that by itself in considered opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad do not constitute any offence; hence, the learned Additional Session Judge-II, Dhanbad did not find any illegality

¶22

¶23

Cr. M.P. No.3687 of 2023

¶24

2026:JHHC:5805

¶25

in the order impugned before it, passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint and dismissed the criminal revision.

¶26

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Dhanbad is illegal and against the material on record as there is clinching evidence in the record that opposite party no.2 has manipulated her date of birth by way of falsely swearing affidavit; declaring the change of date of birth differently, in order to use of the legal rights of the petitioner and both the courts failed to consider that the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120B are made out. Hence, the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶27

Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that in the absence of any allegation of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 inducing anybody to part with any money or property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is not made out. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 of making any false document in terms of Section 464 of the I.P.C., neither the offence punishable under Section 465 of I.P.C. nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the I.P.C. is made out even with the aid of Section 120B of the I.P.C. Therefore, neither the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad has not committed any illegality in dismissing

¶28

¶29

Cr. M.P. No.3687 of 2023

¶30

2026:JHHC:5805

¶31

the complaint or the criminal revision respectively. Therefore, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶32

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 is absolutely no allegation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 of inducing anyone to deliver any property and in the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C., this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations made against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are considered to be true in their entirety; still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶33

So far as the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute both these offences is forgery and for constituting the offence of forgery making false document is a sine qua non .

¶34

Now, coming to the facts of the case the only allegation against the opposite party no.2 and 3 is that they have disclosed their ages by mentioning it differently in different documents. This, by itself in considered opinion of this Court, in the facts of this case is insufficient to constitute the offence of creating a false document in terms of Section 464 of the I.P.C. and there is no material in the record to suggest that on what basis the different ages of the opposite party no.2 and 3 were recorded in different documents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

¶35

¶36

Cr. M.P. No.3687 of 2023

¶37

2026:JHHC:5805

¶38

in such facts of the case neither the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad has committed any illegality in dismissing respectively the complaint and the criminal revision. Hence, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner is to be acceded to in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

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

¶40

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶41

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20^th of February, 2026 NAFR/ Amar Uploaded on 27/02/2026

¶42

¶43

Cr. M.P. No.3687 of 2023

Ashwini Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abha Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganga Alias Gangamani Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rudranand Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand

Debashish Mazumdar Alias Devasish Majumdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishun Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand