Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:9656)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 843 of 2026
1. Rajendra Singh, aged about 61 years, son of late Lal Narayan Singh
2. Prem Bhaskar, aged about 41 years, son of Rajendra Singh
Both r/o New Dutta Lane Morabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P.
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with
the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the
order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of
2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3578 of 2017 whereby and where
under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188,
1
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)504, 506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the
petitioners.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
case is next fixed to 05.05.2026 for appearance of the accused
persons and charge has not yet been framed.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were
carrying out the construction activity at a plot, the ownership of
which is claimed by the informant and when the petitioners saw
the informant they rushed towards the informant with a gun
along with 4-5 unknown persons and shouted at the informant
and threatened to kill him.
5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017 and took up
investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police
submitted charge sheet and basing upon the same, the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence
as already indicated above.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by
relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md.
Mukhtar @ Md. Mokhtar @ Md. Mukhter & Ors. vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 877 of 2023 dated
11.12.2023, that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Issac Isanga
Musumba & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 357, paragraph no.3 of which reads as under:-
2
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ
petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the
complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown
copies of international warrants issued against the
complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by
Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the
accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent
to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention
whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused,
any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants.
If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as
defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states
that:
“383. Extortion.–Whoever intentionally puts any person in
fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security or anything signed or
sealed which may be converted into a valuable security,
commits ‘extortion’.”
Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person
pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and
an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been
registered by the police.” (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that therein, it was held in the facts of that case where
in a complaint, there was no mention that pursuant to the
demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the
accused by the complainant, that the offence punishable under
Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid
& Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
951 and in paragraph no.34 of which, it has been observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
3
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
over and above the averments and if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if
the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered
to be true in its entirety, still, none of the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 188 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that since the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable offences, in the absence
of any cognizable offences being made out, registration of the FIR
in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in law. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as
the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code
is concerned, in view of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of
the offence inter alia punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal
Code except upon a complaint in writing by the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant he is administratively
subordinate; assuming for the sake of argument that the offence
punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code is made out
though not admitting, still the cognizance of the offence under
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code having been taken on the
basis of charge sheet submitted by the police and without any
complaint in writing having been filed by any public servant
4
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
concerned, the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
8. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the
prayer and submits that the allegation made in the FIR if
considered to be true in its entirety are sufficient to constitute each
of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered and
consequent upon submission of charge sheet, cognizance has been
taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi. Hence,
it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence
punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence
are: –
(1) Accused is a member of an unlawful assembly;
(2) The assembly is of five or more persons;
(3) Common object of the assembly is one of the five crimes
specified in the section;
(4) Accused knew of the object.
10. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinubhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Ors.
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 743 that in order to constitute the offence
5
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
punishable under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code it has to be
established that the accused was member of an unlawful assembly
and common object of the unlawful assembly was one of the five
objects specified under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation that apart from the petitioners who are the two named
accrued persons of the case, 4-5 unknown persons who were
allegedly accompanying two petitioners, were having any
common object of committing any of the five objects specified
under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code, which is a sine qua non to
constitute any unlawful assembly and in the absence of any
allegation of anyone else than the two petitioners of having
committed any overt act and in the absence of any allegation that
the persons accompanying the two petitioners were knowing the
object of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that
even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the
FIR are considered to be true, in its entirety, still the offence
punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that
Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits
any court taking cognizance of any offence inter alia under Section
188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing
6
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant
he is administratively subordinate.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that no public servant has made any complaint in writing to the
Magistrate. FIR was lodged on the basis of a written report issued
by a private person. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section
195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of
the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code
without any complaint in writing being filed by any public
servant. Accordingly, the cognizance under Section 188 of the
Indian Penal Code is bad in law.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence are:-
(1) The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that
person or any other person;
(2) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional;
(3) The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property, valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security and;
(4) Such inducement must be done dishonestly
7
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay & Anr. reported in (1986) 2
SCC 716.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioners of inducing any person to put in
fear to deliver any property, valuable security or anything signed
or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security and in
the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations made against
the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true, in its entirety,
still the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out.
16. So far as the remaining offences i.e. the offences punishable
under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are
concerned, they are non-cognizable offences and in the absence of
any cognizable offence, an FIR cannot be registered only in respect
of non-cognizable offences.
17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer made by
the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Ranchi in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017,
corresponding to G.R. No. 3578 of 2017 is quashed and set aside
qua the petitioners.
8
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9656)
19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 6th April, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 10/04/2026
9
Cr.M.P. No.843 of 2026