JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 in all the cases but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. Since all these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the common prayer to quash the order dated 20.11.2017 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 330, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioners of these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, hence, all these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant/complainant was working as a Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. Bank. The petitioners who are the Superior Officers of the informant company, on 04.06.2015 in the night, together went to the house of the informant and forced him to sign some papers. The informant/complainant did not agree for the same. On the informant/complainant not agreeing for the same, the petitioners misbehaved with him. On hearing the commotion between the petitioners and the informant/complainant, the wife of the informant/complainant who was pregnant for four months intervened by coming to the drawing room of the house of the informant/complainant, where the petitioners were sitting and told the petitioners to go away from her house and to sort out the official matters in their office at which the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.2062 of 2019 namely Shashank Jha and the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.2183 of 2019 namely Abhik Mukherjee pushed the wife of the informant/complainant and caused hurt to her and took her to the bedroom, while the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.2060 of 2019 namely Akhilesh Tiwary caught hold of the neck of the informant/complainant and threatened him that unless he signs those papers, he will face dire consequences and in the meantime, the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.2062 of 2019 namely Shashank Jha came out from the bedroom of the informant/complainant and abused and intentionally insulted the informant/complainant. The informant/complainant was terrified, as because his wife was pregnant and was thus, forced to sign on the paper. Later on the informant informed the matter to the police. The informant/complainant was terrified, as because his wife was pregnant and was thus, forced to sign on the paper. Later on the informant informed the matter to the police. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered the case but the same ended in the Final Form and on protest petition being filed by the informant/complainant, on the basis of the materials in the record including the statement on solemn affirmation of the informant/complainant, statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 330, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioners of these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 612 and submits that in the facts of that case as the complainant of that case, merely stated that the complainant was forcibly ejected from the company’s office by security personnel, who attempted to assault, physically harass and threatened with dire consequences, it was observed in the facts of that case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that as the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE i.e., actual hurt is caused to the victim, is not made out, therefore the materials in the record in that case were insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is next submitted that in para-43 of the said judgment, in the facts of that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the discrepancies and variations outlined suggest a deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non- cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressuring the accused persons into settling the dispute with the complainant. 6. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that this false case has been foisted only because of the termination of the services of the complainant by the petitioners. 6. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that this false case has been foisted only because of the termination of the services of the complainant by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the informant/complainant also filed Industrial Disputes Case vide I.D. Case No.02 of 2018 pending in the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. It is next submitted that there is no allegation that any injury/hurt has been sustained by the informant/complainant. It is then submitted that the informant/complainant on the very next day of the alleged occurrence i.e, on 05.06.2015, came to the branch of the H.D.F.C. Bank and created ruckus. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the narration of the alleged occurrence by the informant/complainant in the F.I.R., Protest-cum- Complaint Petition and in the statement on solemn affirmation of the informant/complainant. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which the prima facie case has been found by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and submit that the allegations against the petitioners are direct and specific. There is allegation that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt to both the informant/complainant and his wife who was pregnant for four months while they caused hurt to the informant/complainant by catching hold of his neck. They further caused hurt to his wife by pushing her in such a manner that she fell down on the ground and hurt was caused to her. They further caused hurt to his wife by pushing her in such a manner that she fell down on the ground and hurt was caused to her. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioners in going to the house of the informant/complainant in the night, knowing pretty well that only the informant/complainant and his pregnant wife are in the house and misbehaving and manhandling both the informant/complainant and his wife was intentionally to cause insult to the informant/complainant and thereby giving provocation to him to cause break the public peace or to commit any offence and the admission on the part of the petitioners that on the next day of the occurrence, the informant/complainant created a ruckus in the H.D.F.C. Bank only corroborates the contention of the informant/complainant that the intentional insult inflicted by the petitioners was of such a nature, which made him to break public peace and may commit any other offence. So, on the statement made by the informant/complainant as well as the admission on the part of the petitioners that in fact, the informant/complainant committed break of public peace on the very next day of the alleged occurrence, goes to show that there is ample material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is next submitted that so far as the offence punishable under Section 330 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of voluntarily causing hurt to the informant/complainant and his wife and the same was done with an ulterior motive. It is lastly submitted that all the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the contention of the petitioners that the allegations against them are false; is a defence which can only be verified during the full-dressed trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions with the prayer for eliminating the general criminal prosecution of the petitioners at this nascent stage, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not sustainable in law, therefore, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Hence, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions with the prayer for eliminating the general criminal prosecution of the petitioners at this nascent stage, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not sustainable in law, therefore, it is submitted that these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “ 11 . The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied) that the defence of the accused person cannot be considered in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. prior to the prosecution proving its case. 9. The contention of the petitioners that there was a termination of the informant/complainant from his services are the fact and the related documents require formal proof. 9. The contention of the petitioners that there was a termination of the informant/complainant from his services are the fact and the related documents require formal proof. It is also a settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. So merely because there was ill-will between the petitioners and the informant/complainant, that is not a ground in itself to quash the entire criminal proceedings; on the ground that the same might have been instituted falsely, for the purpose of wrecking vengeance. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not stifle with a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of in furtherance of their common intention causing hurt to both the informant/complainant and his wife; who was pregnant for four months. There is allegation that the hurt was caused to the informant/complainant by pressing his neck and hurt was also caused to his wife by pushing her in such a manner that she fell down on the ground and hurt was caused to her. Further, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting the informant/complainant to provoke him to commit breach of peace or to commit any other offence and it is also alleged by the petitioners that on the very next day of the alleged occurrence, the informant/complainant caused ruckus in the Bank of which the petitioners are the employees. So, this Court is of the considered view that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences punishable under Sections 323 and Section 504 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is considered view that these are not fit cases to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Therefore, this Court is considered view that these are not fit cases to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, all these three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, are dismissed. 12. In view of disposal of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, the interim relief granted vide common order dated 03.12.2019 passed in all these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, is vacated. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.