[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Gorango Bauri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:5239)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1134 of 2025
Gorango Bauri, aged about 44 years, son of late Madan Bauri, resident
of Village-Kura, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Devashish Ojha, son of Dipak Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand,
Kura @ Ojhadih @ Girdhartand, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-
Bokaro
3. Vijay Ojha, son of Dipak Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand, Kura @
Ojhadih @ Girdhartand, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro
4. Dhruv Lal Ojha, son of Shitkanth Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand,
P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro
5. Raju Ojha, son of late Ajit Ojha, resident of Ojhadih (Kurma), P.O.-
Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Baibhav, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to
delete the names of the opposite party no.2- Dipak Ojha and
opposite party no.6- Chandi Ojha from the cause title of this criminal
miscellaneous petition as they have died.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, prayer is allowed.
(2026:JHHC:5239)
4. Registry is directed to delete the opposite party nos.2 and 6 from
the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition and renumber
the remaining opposite parties as opposite party nos.2 to 5 with red
ink.
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with
the prayer to quash the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 45 of
2025 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge,
Bokaro dismissed the criminal revision, which was directed
against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2023
whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Bokaro dismissed the complaint in terms of Section 204 (4)
of Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 227 (4) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and also to quash the
said order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant
of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2023. In the said
(2026:JHHC:5239)
protest-cum-complaint case, summoning order was passed on
08.02.2024 and the complainant was directed to file requisites
including process fee for issue of summons to the accused persons
of the said case. Thereafter, the complaint did not take any steps
nor filed any process fee for issue of the process against the
accused persons of the case. The lawyer of the complainant only
filed attendance on 10.06.2024 and 11.06.2024. As the process fee
and other fees were not deposited by the complainant over a
period of eight months, in violation of specific direction for the
same by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro; the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro dismissed the
complaint under Section 204 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure
vide order dated 03.10.2024 in C.P. Case No. 1054 of 2024. The
said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro was
challenged by the complainant, before the learned Sessions Judge,
Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2025 and the learned
Sessions Judge, Bokaro without finding any illegality or infirmity
in order dated 03.10.2024, dismissed the revision.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
before dismissal no peremptory order was passed and the
complainant was under the bona fide impression that he has
challenged the part of the cognizance order before the High Court
and he is not required to pursue the matter in the court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner
(2026:JHHC:5239)
filed Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2024 in this Court, but the same
has been dismissed as withdrawn. It is lastly submitted that the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and
submits that Section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. envisages that if the process
fee and other fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the
Magistrate may dismiss the complaint and the period of eight
months, in which several dates were fixed before the learned
Magistrate, is more than a reasonable time to file the process fee
and other fees and those having not been filed, no illegality has
been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Bokaro or the Sessions Judge, Bokaro; in dismissing the complaint
and the criminal revision respectively. Hence, it is submitted that
this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, in view of the
undisputed facts of this case, the only issue to be decided in this
case, is whether period of eight months is a reasonable time for
the complainant to file the process fee and other fees. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the period of eight months is
more than a reasonable time for the complainant to file the
process fee and other fees. Admittedly, the same having not been
filed within the period of eight months, neither the learned
(2026:JHHC:5239)
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro nor the learned Sessions
Judge, Bokaro has committed any illegality in dismissing the
complaint and the criminal revision respectively, warranting
interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section
528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
of any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th February, 2026
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 24/02/2026
