JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 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 , 1973 with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 16.07.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.1837 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the own sister of the complainant and the petitioner No.2 is the husband of the petitioner No.1 and it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioners have kept the documents of the property of the mother of the complainant and also her jewelries but are not giving the same to the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 SCC (Supp.) 1335 and submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as in this case also as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found sufficient materials against the petitioners is made out even if, the entire allegation against them, are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that on the basis of the materials in the record, all the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case is made out, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 K.N. Mehra vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1957 SC 369 that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:- (i) The accused removed the movable property; (ii) He removed it out of the possession of another person without his consent; (iii) He did so with a dishonest intention. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have kept the property belonging to the mother of the complainant who is also admittedly the mother of the petitioner No.1 and apparently the mother was residing with the petitioners, at the time of her death, has removed such property from out of the possession of another without her consent. Because a person leaving his property at the time of his death, if retained by the person who was with the deceased at the time of his death, it cannot be said that such person has removed the property from the possession of the deceased, without his consent. Further, there is no allegation of any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners while retaining the property of the complainant at the time of death of the mother of the complainant. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is neither any allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners intentionally insulted the complainant or anyone else, so, the question of offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of criminally intimidating the complainant or anyone else and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case is, in fact, made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 16.07.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.1837 of 2021, is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.