Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Paswan @ Jai Prakash Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:31689)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.859 of 2025
------
1. Prakash Paswan @ Jai Prakash Paswan, aged about 46 years, son
of Late Ram Ratan Paswan,
2. Bablu Paswan, aged about 30 years, son of Late Bhikhan Dusadh
3. Gopal Paswan @ Gopal Kr. Paswan, aged about 27 years, son of
Narayan Paswan
All are residents of Village Harijan Tola, Jarmunne Chatti, PO
& PS Bagodar, District- Giridih ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajendra Thakur, son of Late Tibha Thakur, resident of Muslim
Mohalla, PO & PS: Bagodar, District- Giridih
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.12779 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.
(2025:JHHC:31689)
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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
with the prayer to quash the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.146 of 2022 in connection with
G.R. No.1281 of 2020 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020 whereby
and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih allowed the criminal
revision and remanded the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Giridih with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law
after observing that there is sufficient material available in the record to attract
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with other Sections for which
charge-sheet has been submitted by the police after investigation of the case.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are accused persons of
Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020 in which after investigation of the case, police
submitted charge-sheet mentioning that the offences punishable under Section
341, 323, 325, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the
petitioners and on the basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Giridih has taken cognizance of the said offences.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the informant of the said Bagodar P.S.
Case No.91 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1281 of 2020, preferred Criminal
Revision No.146 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, Giridih without giving
(2025:JHHC:31689)
any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, though they were parties to
the said Criminal Revision No.146 of 2022, allowed the Criminal Revision
behind them.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.1962 of 2023 before this Court and this Court vide
order dated 29th July, 2024 in the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1962
of 2023, set aside the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih passed in Cr. Revision No.146 of 2022 and remitted
the matter to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Giridih to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners by issuing a notice to them. Vide order dated 07.02.2025, the learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih allowed the Criminal Revision after observing that the
materials available in the record prima facie go to show that the injuries
sustained by the victim could be dangerous to life or becoming sufficient in
ordinary cause of nature, to cause death of the injured, in case medical aid was
not rendered and was of the opinion that there is sufficient material available in
the record to attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with other
Sections and remitted the matter back to the learned trial court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which
reads as under:-
"15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the
complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from
seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their
duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be
held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR.
The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution
(2025:JHHC:31689)
cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the
sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities
for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into
the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been
conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this
lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom
the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the
charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is
based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time
of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial
court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218
or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that
after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the
prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage
of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the
appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be
framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused
also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under
a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the
appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine
whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be
added or removed depending upon the material collected during
investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-
sheet." (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the Magistrate in a
case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the
time of taking cognizance and the same would be permissible by the trial court
only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section
228 Cr.P.C as the case may be and as the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Giridih has exactly taken cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge-
sheet was submitted, there was no occasion for the learned Sessions Judge,
Giridih to set aside the same.
6. Therefore, 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 and the learned counsel 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 submit that there is no illegality in
(2025:JHHC:31689)
the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in
connection with Criminal Revision No.146 of 2022 in connection with G.R.
No.1281 of 2020 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020. 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, it is pertinent to mention
here that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra), it is a settled
principle of law that the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report
cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance. Under such
circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih having taken
cognizance of exactly the offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been
submitted, there was no rhyme or reason for the learned Sessions Judge,
Giridih to interfere with the same in exercise of its revisional power and by the
impugned order dated 07.02.2025 in Criminal Revision No.146 of 2022, in
connection with G.R. No.1281 of 2020 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of
2020, the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has committed a grave illegality.
Therefore, the impugned judgement is not sustainable in law and is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.146 of 2022 in connection with G.R.
No.1281 of 2020 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020, is quashed and
set aside and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.91 of
2020 is restored.
(2025:JHHC:31689)
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 14th of October, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 16/10/2025
