Jharkhand High Court
Usha Bajaj vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:12120)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.778 of 2025
------
1. Usha Bajaj, age - 63 Years, W/o Late Pramod Kumar Bajaj
2. Rachit Bajaj, age - 39 Years, S/o Late Pramod Kumar Bajaj
Both R/o C-2/3, Umesh Enclave, Main Road, Adityapur, P.O.
& P.S. - Adityapur, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate
Mr. Anadi Brahma, Advocate
Ms. Neha Priya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order
dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Seraikella in S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case
No.65 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Seraikella has framed the charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; on the ground that
the charge was framed on the same day when the police papers were
supplied, by which the petitioners were deprived of their rights, to
receive deficient police paper and to prefer discharge application.
(2025:JHHC:12120)
3. This case is having a chequered history. The petitioners are the accused
persons of S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.65 of
2016. Vide order dated 30.11.2023, charge was framed for the offence
punishable under Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.150 of 2024 claiming that
without the compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Serikella has framed the charges against them. A co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, allowed the Criminal Revision
on the ground that the mandatory requirement of compliance of Section 207 of
the Cr.P.C., having not been done by framing of the charge and set aside the
order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Seraikella in S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 and remitted the matter to the court
concerned to decide framing of the charge afresh; after conveyance of police
papers. The said order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.150 of
2024 was received by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella on
07.10.2024. The case was next fixed to 14.11.2024 for compliance of Section 207
of the Cr.P.C. On 14.11.2024, the petitioner No.2 was physically present before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella and the petitioner No.1 was
represented by her lawyer. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, the case was fixed to
20.12.2024 for hearing on the charge. On 20.12.2024 both the petitioners were
present before the trial court. The lawyers of the petitioners received the police
paper on behalf of the petitioners and he made an endorsement in the remarks
column of the order-sheet of the concerned case, that he has received the police
papers on behalf of both the accused persons, without expressing anything to
show, that they want time to file any discharge petition or there is anything
(2025:JHHC:12120)
lacking in the police papers supplied to the petitioners in compliance of Section
207 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that on 20.12.2024 both the learned defence
counsel i.e. the counsel of the petitioners herein and the learned Additional P.P.
were present for hearing on the point of charge. The learned Additional P.P.
opened the case by describing the charges to be framed against the accused
persons. The learned defence counsel i.e. the counsel for the petitioners
opposed the submissions on behalf of the prosecution. After hearing both the
sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella was of the opinion
that there was ample material for the purpose of framing of charge, under
Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and framed the charges. The
charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was next fixed to
04.01.2025 however the petitioners felt it not proper to file the copy of the
order-sheet dated 04.01.2025 but have filed the order-sheet dated 01.02.2025. On
01.02.2025, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
stating therein that in the order dated 20.12.2024, the words 'sample' in the
fourth line of the second paragraph be replaced with 'ample' and further in the
sixth line of the second paragraph the words 'does not oppose' be replaced
with 'opposes' as the same has happened because of clerical error. The learned
trial court corrected the said inadvertent clerical errors and rectified the order
dated 20.12.2024, to the aforesaid extent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners earlier
preferred a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. which was
rejected vide order dated 25.08.2024 and after perusal of the rejection order of
(2025:JHHC:12120)
their discharge application; as the petitioners could know that there is
paragraphs-97 and 98 in the supplementary case-diary, a copy of which was
never supplied to them, so the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.150 of
2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Raj Ballabh Prasad @
Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2016
SCC OnLine Pat 4384 and submits that therein it was observed that all the
documents and materials, which the prosecution seeks to rely upon, must be
furnished to the accused and after giving adequate and effective opportunity to
the accused; the hearing on charge shall take place.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another
vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 58 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to
consider the role of the investigating agency to be performed, while further
investigation of the case takes place and submits that in that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that for submitting a supplementary report after
further investigation of the case, fresh oral or documentary evidence should be
obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected
and as in this case also, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioners without any fresh oral and documentary evidence, hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
oppose the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P. It is next
submitted that there is a difference between the submission of a supplementary
(2025:JHHC:12120)
charge-sheet without any further investigation, after completing the unfinished
investigation against some of the accused persons and submission of a
supplementary report, after further investigation of the case which is done as
per Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that this is not a case
where any further investigation, in terms of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. or
otherwise was directed by any court of law. Hence, the ratio of Mariam
Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another (supra)
is not attracted to the facts of this case. It is next submitted that indisputably the
petitioners had earlier filed a petition for discharge, which has already been
rejected and the said order is not under challenge and has attained finality. It is
further submitted that though the petitioners have used the words "deficient
police paper" in the prayer portion of this Cr.M.P. but in the body of the
petition nowhere has it categorically been mentioned as to what was deficient,
in the police paper supplied to the petitioners nor any such grievance was ever
raised by the petitioners before the trial court and in the absence of any
averment that anything was deficient in the police paper supplied to the
petitioners, through their counsel on 20.12.2024, the prayer made by the
petitioners herein is a hollow one and being without any merit, has been made
for the sole purpose of dragging the litigation, to evade facing the trial as far as
possible. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners, were admittedly, well-aware about the
supplementary case-diary and the contents of paragraphs-97 and 98 thereof
(2025:JHHC:12120)
from the rejection order of their discharge application. The undisputed fact
remains that they were supplied the police papers on 20.12.2024; after the
earlier order framing charge was set aside by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
There is no material in the record, as to what made the petitioners not to
intimate the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, that they have not been
supplied the entire police paper, in compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. As
already indicate above; though on 01.02.2025 the petitioners filed a petition in
the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella pointing out some
clerical error in the order dated 20.12.2024 and the same was also allowed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella but no explanation is
forthcoming from the petitioners, that if at all the petitioners were not supplied
the entire police papers, what made them not to agitate the same before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella by intimating the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella that they have not been supplied the
entire police papers or that there is anything deficient in the police papers
supplied to them under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
9. As already indicated above, the petitioners have already filed a petition
to discharge them from the case; which was rejected on merit and having not
been challenged, the same has attained finality. In this Cr.M.P. also, the
petitioners have not raised any grievance against the said petition.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the claim of the petitioners that they have not been not given any opportunity
to file any petition for discharge, is without any merit; more so, as they never
made any prayer for time to enable them to file any further discharge petition,
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, if they at all wanted
(2025:JHHC:12120)
to file any petition for discharge; rather they willingly participated in the
hearing of framing of the charge without any demur; but once the charge was
framed and it went against the petitioners, they have come up with this petition
knowing pretty well that the order rejecting their petition for discharge has
already attained finality.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there
is no merit in this Cr.M.P.
12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 24th of April, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
