Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:34756 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3289 of 2025
------
Vikash Paswan, aged about 22 years, S/o Binod Paswan, R/o
Mukunda, Itkithakurgaon, Post Office and Police Station-Itki,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand-835301 ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.PP
------
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 the prayer to quash the order dated
01.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX,
Ranchi in connection with S.T. No.562 of 2025 corresponding the G.R.
No.2074 of 2025 in connection with Itki P.S. Case No.08 of 2025,
whereby the application of the petitioner for supply of documents as
per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 230 of B.N.S.S., 2023
has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to direct the learned
Trial Court to supply the complete police paper along with the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused of Itki
P.S. Case No.08 of 2025. After submission of charge-sheet, police paper
was supplied to the Advocate of the petitioner. The Advocate of the
petitioner has made endorsement acknowledging the receipt of the
[2025:JHHC:34756 ]
police paper in the remarks column of the order-sheet of the
concerned case record. The petitioner never raised any grievance before
the learned Magistrate who supplied the police paper to him, of any
deficiency in the police paper supplied to him. The case was committed
to the Court of Sessions on 22.09.2025. The case was fixed for hearing on
framing of the charge. At this stage, the petitioner filed a petition
claiming that copy of the case diary beyond paragraph 191 has not been
supplied to the petitioner and the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as mentioned in paragraph 19 of the
case diary has also not been provided. The learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XX, Ranchi considered this conduct of the petitioner in
not raising any grievance before the learned Magistrate who supplied
the copy of police paper to the petitioner and before whom the
petitioner through his Advocate received the police papers without
demur and only when the case was fixed for hearing on the charge, as a
tactic to defer the charge being framed against the petitioner by
inventing a novel idea of claiming that the copy of case diary beyond
paragraph 191 was not supplied to him and fixed the case to 13.11.2025
for consideration of framing of charge.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2025. It is
further submitted that without fully complying with the provisions
under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case has been committed to the
Court of Sessions. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in
this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
[2025:JHHC:34756 ]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.K. Sasikala Vs. State
represented by Superintendent of Police reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771,
wherein in the facts of that case, it was held that in the facts and
circumstances of that case, where the application made by the accused
person of the case concerned for certified copy of all documents and in
alternative for inspection of the unmarked unexhibited documents in
the trial pending was rejected; the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India went
on to observe in paragraph 24.4 that if the accused also desire inspection
of the unmarked and unexhibited documents, such inspection will be
allowed by the trial court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan
@ Dileep Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 and
submits that in paragraph 18 of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, in para 47 of which it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a power under
Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any time after the charge
sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during
the stage of Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C., committal, etc. which is only a
pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion.
7. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
8. The learned Spl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer and submits that there is no rhyme and reason as to why the
[2025:JHHC:34756 ]
petitioner never raised the grievance of not being supplied with the
copy of the entire case diary or the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate who has
admittedly supplied the copy of police paper to the petitioner.
9. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XX, Ranchi has rightly observed that the conduct of the
petitioner; to raise the plea that he has not been supplied with the entire
case diary for the first time on 01.11.2025, to which date the case was
fixed for framing of charge, was just a dilatory tactics adopted by the
petitioner to defer the framing of charge but since the charge has
already been framed on 18.11.2025, the petitioner if so intends may
inspect the records and take note of the relevant materials if any which
has been missed out in the police paper supplied to the petitioner. It is
lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be
dismissed.
10. 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
petitioner has been supplied the police paper on 08.09.2025. Neither the
Advocate of the petitioner nor the petitioner raised any grievance before
the learned Magistrate, who supplied the police paper till today, that the
police paper supplied to them are incomplete in any respect. For the
first time, when the case was fixed on 01.11.2025 for framing of charge
after commitment of the case to the court of Sessions before the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi, a petition was filed
claiming that police paper supplied is incomplete.
[2025:JHHC:34756 ]
11. In view of the conduct of the petitioner in not being diligent in
pointing out that the police paper supplied to him is incomplete to the
Magistrate concerned, who supplied it or any day before the case was
fixed for framing of charge, this Court do not find any error on the part
of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in
observing that the conduct of the petitioner was a dilatory tactics to
prevent the charge being framed in this case.
12. Be that as it may, as has been held in paragraph 24.4 in the case of
V.K. Sasikala Vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police
(supra); since the charge has already been framed, the petitioner if so
advised, may inspect the case record as per law by paying appropriate
fee and can take note of all the relevant facts and if such a prayer is
made, it is expected that the trial Court will allow the same in
accordance with law but this Court do not find any justification to
accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated
01.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX,
Ranchi in connection with S.T. No.562 of 2025 corresponding the G.R.
No.2074 of 2025 in connection with Itki P.S. Case No.08 of 2025; there
being no illegality in the same.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without
any merit is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of November, 2025
AFR/ Madhav
Uploaded on 26/11/2025
