Jharkhand High Court
Subh Karan Choradia @ Subh Karan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No.36 of 2025
Subh Karan Choradia @ Subh Karan Choraria
@ Subh Karan Chaurasia, @Subh Karan aged about-45 years, son of late
L.K. Choradia, P.O. & Village-Gogolao, P.S.-Nagaur, District-Nagaur,
Rajasthan, presently working in HR Department, DVC Towers, HQ
Kolkata P.O. Karkungachi, P.S. Maniktala, District-Kolkata and posted
as Senior Manager (Electrical).
... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Jharkhand.
2. Arun Kumar @ Arun Tiwary, son of late S.K. Tiwary, R/o Puja Guest
House, P.O. & P.S.-Maithon Dam, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
Order No.03/Dated- 12.02.2025
1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for
quashing of the order dated 16.08.2024, whereby and where
under, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad had
allowed the criminal revision No.116 of 2022 filed by the O.P.
No.2 in which the O.P. No.2 had challenged the order dated
11.07.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad arising out of C.P. Case No. 2327 of 2020 in which
learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint petition
filed by O.P. No.2 against the petitioner for alleged commission of
offences under Sections 500 of the I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by
Page | 1
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Criminal
Revision No. 116 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned
revisional court rejected the order of dismissal filed by the
complainant. The case has been remanded to the concerned trial
court for passing a fresh order. Learned counsel for the petitioner
touches the merits of the case regarding necessity of sanction from
the government for prosecution of public servant and the case
also covers the exceptions provided under Section 499 of the I.P.C.
Therefore, impugned judgment is not justified under law and fit
to be set aside.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner and has submitted that learned Sessions Court in
revision has only remitted back the case for passing of fresh order
and no effective order prejudicial to the interest of the present
petitioner has been passed as yet. Therefore, this petition is
premature and fit to be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the
impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
in Criminal Revision No.116 of 2022. It appears that it is the case
registered against dismissal of the complaint petition filed by the
complainant as the complaint was dismissed by the concerned
trial court under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. That order was
challenged in the revision by the complainant and the learned
revisional court has only remitted back the case before the
concerned trial court for reconsideration on certain points and to
pass appropriate order a fresh in accordance with law. Obviously,
Page | 2
the present petitioner has not been summoned as yet for any of
the offence and as such the impugned order is not prejudicial to
his interest. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed at the initial
stage itself.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Amar/-
Page | 3
