Jharkhand High Court
Anish Kumar Dokania @ Anish Kumar … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2321 of 2024
------
1. Anish Kumar Dokania @ Anish Kumar Dokaniyan @ Anish
Dokania, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Shiv Ratan Dokania,
Director, Model Fuels Private Limited, R/o Dokania Bhawan,
Katras Road, P.O. & P.S.-Bank More, District-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
2. Kunal Ranjan, aged about 43 years, S/o Shyam Mohan Sinha,
Sales Head, Model Fuel Private Limited, R/o MIG B/11, Housing
Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Nawal Kishore Prasad,
Sales Manager, Model Fuels Private Limited, R/o Near Triloki
Nath Mandir, Yaduvansh Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ganesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Sri Gayaram Thakur, resident of Basti
Balidih, P.O. & P.S.-Balidih, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
I.A. No.10080 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant
Cr.M.P.
1 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this
interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Cr.M.P. No.2321 of 2024
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Balidih P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.201 of 2024
including the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 323, 504 & 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioners basing
upon the charge sheet submitted by the police in the case against the
petitioners for having committed the said offence.
3. The allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners in
criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common
intention cheated the informant/complainant by deceiving him that on
payment of Rs.16,800/-, they will arrange the registration of the vehicle
namely Mahindra Alfa Load Plus of the complainant and will also
arrange the tax and fitness documents of the said vehicle and by so
deceiving the complainant/informant by fraudulently making the
2 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
complainant/informant believe that what they are saying is in fact true,
by inducing him made him part with Rs.16,800/-, but cheated him and
did not get the said registration done and on the complainant/informant
demanding for the same, the petitioners caused hurt to the
complainant/informant and intentionally insulted him in such a manner
to provoke him to cause breach of peace and to commit other offences.
The complainant filed Complaint Case No.1529 of 2022 which upon being
referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., police registered Balidih
P.S. Case No.41 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and after
completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the
petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners;
basing upon which, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro has taken cognizance of the said offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora and
Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 15 SCC 164 and
submit that in the facts of that case involving the offences punishable
under Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act and it was
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-24 that while
inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal
complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length of
04 years between the initial site inspection, show-cause notice and the
complaint must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor; as a
grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. It is next submitted that, in
3 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
this case, there is a delay of 2.5 years in lodging the FIR during which
period, the complainant alleges that the petitioners were promising to get
the registration done, firstly from Jharkhand, thereafter, from other states
and ultimately from Andhra Pradesh, so for such reason, the prayer of the
petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous petition is to be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2023 INSC 1088,
wherein the facts of that case, except the statement “they beat me up” by
the complainant/informant, there were no material available in the record
regarding commission of the said offence, it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that in that case, the basic ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code is lacking in the charge sheet.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then relies upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fiona Shrikhande
vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 and
submits that in para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of
the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and held that intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. It is next submitted that, in this case, since, there is no material in
the record to suggest that intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other
4 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
offence, hence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relies upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in
(2000) 4 SCC 168 and submits that in para-15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has discussed the distinction between mere breach of contract
and the offence of cheating to be a fine one and it depends upon the
intention of the accused at the time of inducement; which may be judged
by his subsequent conduct and submits that in this case, the petitioners
having no intention to cheat the complainant/informant, hence, the
offences punishable under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, by the
petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioners that the petitioners deceived the complainant/informant by
their fraudulent acts, by making him believe that upon his paying
Rs.16,800/-, they will get the vehicle registered, arranged the tax and
fitness documents of the vehicle; even though the petitioner has had no
intention to provide the documents or to get the vehicle registered, since
the beginning and when the complainant/informant was so deceived,
they induced him to part with Rs.16,800/- and the complainant after
5 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
being so deceived was induced and consequent upon such inducement
parted with Rs.16,800/-, but ultimately, the petitioners having not done
the acts for which they received the said money, hence, the allegations are
sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
9. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is submitted
by the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State that the delay is well
explained that the complainant has mentioned in the complaint itself that
the petitioners from time to time were taking him for a ride by making
him believe that they will soon get the registration done, firstly, by saying
that they will get it done from other states and lastly they made the
promise to get the registration of the vehicle done from the State of
Andhra Pradesh, so keeping in view the nature of deception played by
the petitioners, the delay is well explained, hence, this is not a case where
on the ground of delay, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed and set
aside.
10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State further submits that it is
a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the
Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offence in respect of which
charge sheet has been submitted and he cannot add or subtract any
section at the time of taking cognizance, because the same would be
permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge.
Otherwise also, the police during the investigation of the case has found
the allegation of commission of the offence punishable under Section 323
6 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
of the Indian Penal Code is made out, as the complainant sustained bodily
pain and injury inflicted by the petitioners; which is sufficient to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and the veracity of the claim of the complainant of having sustained
simple hurt is the subject matter of the trial and when the police has
found the allegations against the petitioners to be true which has been
mentioned in the case diary, so at this stage, the entire criminal
proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside and the same is the case in
respect of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal
Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any
merit, be dismissed.
11. 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 direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of
playing deception, having deceived the complainant/informant by
making him believe that upon payment of Rs.16,800/-, the petitioners will
arrange the tax and fitness documents and get the vehicle registered and
when the complainant was so deceived, the petitioners have successfully
induced him by making him part with Rs.16,800/- which they have taken
but they have cheated the complainant/informant as they have not done
the registration or handed over the tax and fitness documents of the
vehicle concerned to the complainant/informant, hence, the allegations
are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
7 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )
12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, paragraph-15 of
which reads as under:-
“15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the
complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from
seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in
their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which
offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts
disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the
negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer
prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which
constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any
reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into
the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had
been conducted. But then a further question arises as to
whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the
Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking
cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already
stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police
report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking
cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court
only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218
or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means
that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the
prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the
stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state
of facts the appropriate sections which according to the
prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed.
Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage
to submit whether the charge under a particular provision
should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a
case based on police report to determine whether the charge
can be framed and a particular section can be added or
removed depending upon the material collected during
investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the
charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied)that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have
failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R.
on which investigation has been conducted, the Magistrate before whom
8 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
( 2026:JHHC:22311 )the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-
sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is
based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of
taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible for the trial court
only at the time of framing the charge.
13. Now, since the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is made out and the offences punishable under Sections 323
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code were also found to have been
committed by the petitioners during the investigation of the of the case as
the allegations made by the complainant/informant was found to be true
by the police, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is
no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners to quash the
entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023.
14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 28th of July, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 30/07/2026
9 Cr. M.P. No.2321 of 2024
