RAMESH OJHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





(2026:JHHC:32585)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1036 of 2023
------
1. Ramesh Ojha, aged about 59 years, Son of Dharni Dhar Ojha
2. Madhu Devi, aged about 50 years, Wife of Ramesh Ojha
Both are Resident of Dhanjori, P.O.- Chainpur, P.S.
Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ruplata Kumari @ Dhara Mehta, Daughter of Late Dashrath
Prasad Mehta, Resident of Pal Bagan, Mihijam, P.O. & P.S.- Mihijam,
…
Dist.- Jamtara Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate
------

P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. 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 arising
out of P.C.R. Case No.69 of 2022 and the order dated 23.12.2022 whereby
and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara
has found prima facie case inter alia against the petitioners for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of
the Indian Penal Code.
1
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners
introduced the complainant to the co-accused Praveen Raut to be the
owner of the land and it was decided that the complainant will purchase
ten (10) Kathas of land for a consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. The
mother of the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque to the
petitioner No.1 and paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the co-accused Praveen Raut. It
was represented by the petitioner No.1 and the said Praveen Raut that
Praveen Raut is the owner of the land having perfect saleable right and
promised that sale-deed will be executed by him for conveying the title of
this property to be sold by him. After sometime, the complainant could
know that the said land was a gifted( Danpatra ) land and the ownership of
the same cannot be transferred by way of registered sale-deed. When the
complainant approached the accused persons and demanded her money
back, the accused persons requested for time and adopted dilly dallying
tactics. In the meanwhile, the petitioner No.2 got the said land transferred
in her name and sold the same to a different person.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned
Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences as already indicated
above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that in fact, the
complainant took Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 and in this respect
she has sworn an affidavit also; the copy of which has been kept as
2
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

Annexure-2 and the complainant also took Rs.55,000/- from the petitioner
No.1 and in this respect, the complainant has also sworn another affidavit
which is kept at Annexure-3 at page-4 of the Supplementary Affidavit
dated 26.06.2024. It is further submitted that the complainant has taken
away the Scooty of the petitioner No.1 by way of cheating and criminal
breach of trust and in this respect, the petitioner No.1 also lodged Mihijam
P.S. Case No.19 of 2019. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for
in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.

6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in
the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the
undisputed fact remains that the petitioner No.1 has taken Rs.3,00,000/-
from the mother of the complainant. It is next submitted that the only
contention of the petitioner No.1 for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding is that he has not committed any offence and, in his defence, he
wants to produce some documents which are the photocopies of the
affidavits purportedly sworn by the complainant/opposite party No.2
which are in fact fake documents, which are not admissible in evidence
and the genuineness of the same can be determined in a full dress trial of
the case but on the contention of the petitioner No.1 that the allegations
against him are false or that he has a very good defence, cannot be the
ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings, by conducting a mini trial
by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of
3
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without
any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as
the petitioner No.1 namely Ramesh Ojha is concerned, there is direct
and specific allegation against him of deceiving the complainant and
her mother by representing them that the co-accused Praveen Raut is
the lawful owner of ten (10) Kathas of land having clear and
transferable right, title and interest over the same which can be
transferred to the complainant upon payment of Rs.13,00,000/-; though
the petitioner no.1, knew the same to be false. The undisputed fact
remains that the petitioner No.1 has received Rs.3,00,000/- from the
mother of the complainant but he has not come forward with any
explanation as to under what account the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
has been taken by him from the complainant. It is a settled principle of
law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 the relevant portion of which
reads as under:-
“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
4
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence
of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied)

that 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.
8. It is also a settled principle of law that the veracity of the
evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 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 State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004
2 Supreme 501.
9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the
petitioner No.1 is that the allegations against him are false and in
support of his defence, the petitioner No.1 intends to draw the attention
of this Court towards photocopies of two affidavits purportedly sworn
in by the complainant, the veracity of which is denied by the
complainant. Such defence of the petitioner No.1 can only be
considered in a full-dress trial but certainly in exercise of the power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the disputed
defence of the petitioner No.1, cannot be considered. Under such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no
justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner No.1 namely
5
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

Ramesh Ojha as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in
exercise of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner no.1 in this
criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit is rejected.

10. So far as the petitioner No.2 namely Madhu Devi is concerned,
there is absolutely no other allegation against her except that she also
introduced the co-accused Praveen Raut to the complainant. There is no
allegation of entrustment of any money to her. There is no allegation of
any deception being played by her to the complainant or anyone else
nor is there any allegation against her of any forgery being committed.
The only allegation against her is that she got transferred the land of the
co-accused Praveen Raut in her name and sold it to someone else.
Assuming such allegation is true even then it is Praveen Kumar Raut
who can have any grievance against the petitioner No.2 but certainly no
offence so far as this case is concerned, is made out against the
petitioner No.2. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of this Criminal Proceeding against the petitioner No.2
namely Madhu Devi when none of the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against her
even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, will amount
to abuse of process of law.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of P.C.R.
Case No.69 of 2022 and the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the
6
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023





(2026:JHHC:32585)

learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner No.2 namely Madhu Devi only.

12. This Cr.M.P. is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J )
.
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 05 of November, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 06/11/2026

7
Cr. M.P. No.1036 of 2023