Jharkhand High Court
Binay Kumar @ Binay Kumar Sinha Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:33969)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.684 of 2025
------
1. Binay Kumar @ Binay Kumar Sinha aged about 65 years son of
Late Mundrika Prasad
2. Priti Bala Sinha aged about 56 years wife of Binay Kumar
3. Prerna @ Prerna Sinha aged about 33 years wife of Sandeep Nawal
and daughter of Binay Kumar
4. Bhawna Srivastava aged about 36 years wife of Pankaj Kumar
Srivastava and daughter of Binay Kumar
5. Akash Sagar aged about 32 years son of Binay Kumar
Nos.1 to 5 are residents of Shiv Dayal Nagar, Near Durga
Mandir, P.O. Kadma, P.S. Katkamdag, District Hazaribag
(Jharkhand)
6. Pintu Sinha @ Niraj Kumar Sinha aged about 52 years son of Late
Birendra Prasad
7. Mohini @ Vijya Rani aged about 79 years wife of Late Birendra
Prasad
Nos.6 and 7 residents of Quarter No.BDS/19, Hospital Colony, P.O.
Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro (Jharkhand)
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shashi Bala Sinha wife of Pradeep Bhusan Verma, resident of
House No.44, Road No.4, Patel Nagar, Chota Govindpur, P.O.
Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
------
PRESENT
(2025:JHHC:33969)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.9292 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken
up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order taking
cognizance dated 23.11.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceedings
arising out of Complaint Case No.1973 of 2022 in which cognizance has
been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in
respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, caused
hurt to the inquiry witness No.3 namely Sandeep Naval and also
caused hurt to his father by pushing him, wrongfully restrained him,
intentionally insulted them provoke them to cause breach of peace or to
commit some other offence and criminally intimidated them. On the
(2025:JHHC:33969)
basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses initially the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie for the
offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.1 and petitioner
No.5 of this Cr.M.P. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No.35 of
2023 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur which upon
being transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Jamshedpur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur
upon going through the statement of the revisionist before it and her
witnesses; came to the conclusion that the offence of assault, intentional
insult, criminal intimidation and use of criminal force appears to be
prima facie made out against more than two accused persons who have
been summoned and remitted the case to the trial court to pass a fresh
summoning order in the light of the observations made by it vide order
dated 06.04.2024. The said order of the learned Additional Sessions-II,
East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur passed in Criminal Revision No.35 of
2023 has not been challenged and has attained finality and in this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition also, the same has not been challenged.
Consequent upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Jamshedpur vide order dated 23.11.2024 passed a fresh order and after
considering the materials in the record found prima facie case for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners and passed the
summoning order against all the petitioners.
(2025:JHHC:33969)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is the second
journey of the petitioners with the self-same prayer. Earlier the
petitioners filed W.P. (Cr.) No.145 of 2024 with the same prayer but the
same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is next submitted that the
petitioners also filed Cr.M.P. No.1275 of 2023 against the order dated
19.01.2023 which is still pending before this Court. It is next submitted
that no case is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted
that the witnesses are not the independent witnesses. It is then
submitted that the impugned order has been passed without
application of judicial mind.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Another reported in 2025:JHHC:31319 and submits that this Corut
quashed the summoning order in that case as the same was passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate being influenced by the order of the
revisional court. Hence, for the same reason, the impugned order be
also quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer of
the petitioners, made in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior
counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand
vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant
Cr.M.P. and learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits
that the undisputed fact remains that the order dated 06.04.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Criminal
Revision No.35 of 2023 has attained finality. The said order is binding
(2025:JHHC:33969)
upon the learned Judicial Magistrate. The undisputed fact remains that
in the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur
has in no uncertain manner observed that upon going through the
statements of the revisionist and her witnesses, the offences of assault,
intentional insult, criminal intimidation and use of criminal force
appears to be prima facie made out against more than two accused
persons who have been summoned. It is next submitted that unlike the
case of Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra);
herein in this case the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur
has not referred to or quoted any observation made by the revisional
court in the impugned order; rather it has taken an independent view
and on the basis of independent appreciation of the materials in the
record, has found prima facie case for the said offences. It is, therefore,
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 the undisputed fact remains that the
order dated 06.04.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2023 has
attained finality and therein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Jamshedpur has categorically held that upon going through the
statements of the revisionist and her witnesses, the offences of assault,
intentional insult, criminal intimidation and use of criminal force
appears to be prima facie made out against more than two accused
persons. The observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Jamshedpur in the said order dated 06.04.2024 that the learned
(2025:JHHC:33969)
Magistrate who passed the order in the light of the observations made
by it, was also binding upon the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Jamshedpur. In this backdrop, the learned Judicial Magistrate without
referring to any observations made by the revisional court in the
impugned order upon independent appreciation of the materials in the
record, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case for the said
offences is made out and passed the summoning order, hence, this
Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
7. So far as the judgment of the Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are
different from the facts of this case, in the sense that, in that case the
learned Judicial Magistrate quoted the observations made by the
revisional court in the order by which it found prima facie case and that
showed lack of independent appreciation of mind which is not the case
in this case. Hence, the ratio of case of Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.
8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any
justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in the
instant Cr.M.P. in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 13th of November, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 20/11/2025
