Ramakant Singh @ Munna Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 24 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramakant Singh @ Munna Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                     (2026:JHHC:72)



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 2863 of 2024


           Ramakant Singh @ Munna Singh, aged about 51 years, son of late
           Ramadhar Singh, resident of Village-Chano, P.O.-Chano and P.S.-
           Muffasil, Dist.-Hazaribag
                                                ....                Petitioner
                                         Versus
           The State of Jharkhand
                                                ....                  Opp. Party

                                       PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. .....

By the Court:-

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 entire criminal proceeding including the

order dated 16.04.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Korrah P.S.

Case No. 72 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 447 of 2020,

whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence

punishable under Sections 171E, 171F, 353, 120B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and under Section 123 of Representation of Peoples

Act consequent upon submission of the charge sheet against the

petitioner for having committed the said offences.

(2026:JHHC:72)

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used

criminal force and assault upon the inspector of Income Tax who

is a public servant in execution of his duty of verifying the hotel

rooms as member of flying squad consisting of other public

servants also constituted to prevent adoption of illegal means in

the Lok Sabha Election for the 14-Hazaribagh Lok Sabha

Constituency for the Lok Sabha Election of the year 2019. It is

alleged that the petitioner was involved in bribery by giving

gratification to persons with object to inducing them to exercise

electoral rights and has also committed the offence of exercising

undue influence at the election. When the informant-Executive

Magistrate-cum-Block Development Officer, Hazaribagh Sadar

Block got information that in a hotel at Hazaribagh to exert undue

influence in the election of Hazaribagh Lok Sabha Constituency,

some rooms have been booked and huge amount of money has

been kept; a raid was conducted in the said hotel by the flying

squad duly constituted by election commission consisting of

public servants and it was found that four different rooms of the

hotel was booked by one of the co-accused persons and from

those four different rooms booked by co-accused person huge

amount of cash has been recovered. The allegation against the

petitioner was that the petitioner was present in one of the rooms

booked by the co-accused and when flying squad consisting of

public servants tried to enquire into the contents of the rooms in

which the petitioner was present, petitioner used criminal force

(2026:JHHC:72)

and assault upon the public servants consisting of flying squad by

manhandling them and obstructing them in discharge of their

official duties. From the room in which the petitioner was present

along with two unknown persons, several documents relating to

giving and taking of money was recovered.

4. On the basis of the written report, police registered Korrah P.S.

Case No. 72 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After

completion of investigation police found the allegation to be true

and submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner and

basing upon the same, learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence as

already indicated above.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

charge has not yet been framed by the trial court. Relying upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

B.N. John vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 4, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that

case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quoted Clause 4 of

paragraph no.102 of the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 wherein, it has

been mentioned that if the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,

no investigation is permitted by the police officer without the

order made by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section

151(2) of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

(2026:JHHC:72)

petitioner that as the offence under Section 171 E and 171 F are

non-cognizable offences; registration of the FIR is not

maintainable. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the entire incident was captured in by

videography, done by the informant party and the petitioner has

applied for the copy of entire videography through Right to

Information Act and the DVD provided by the Deputy Election

Officer, Hazaribagh will go to show that the allegations against

the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as

made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes

the prayer and submits by drawing attention of this Court to the

counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand in this case that

during the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses

namely Rahul Kumar Malto who is Assistant Engineer at the

relevant time and member of flying squad has been recorded in

paragraph no.6 of the case diary, witness- Manoj Kumar Ojha who

is a Junior Engineer at the relevant time and member of flying

squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph no.13 of

the case diary, Abhishek Kumar Pandey who is State Tax Officer

and member of flying squad whose statement has been recorded

in paragraph no.14 of the case diary, Jyotish Oraon who is Junior

Engineer and member of flying squad whose statement has been

recorded in paragraph no.15 of the case diary and Rajendra

Prasad Singh who is Circle Officer, Hazaribagh and member of

(2026:JHHC:72)

flying squad whose statement has been recorded in paragraph

no.15 of the case diary have all supported and corroborated the

case of the prosecution to the extent as alleged by the informant in

the FIR. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that the

only contention of the petitioner is that the allegations against the

petitioner are all false basing upon the DVD which has been

supplied to him by the Deputy Election Officer, Hazaribagh but

that is the defence of the petitioner that he can certainly take

during the trial of the case but this Court in exercise of the power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot look into the defence of the

petitioner when prosecution evidence is yet to start. It is further

submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the genuineness of DVD

filed by the petitioner can only be examined during the trial in

accordance with law and the same cannot be done by this Court in

exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is then

submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the materials in the record

are sufficient to constitute all the offences in respect of which

charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken

by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition

being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to

mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the High

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2026:JHHC:72)

cannot consider the defence of the accused person and the

veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused person as has

been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.

reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501; more so when the evidence of the

prosecution is yet to begin.

8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs.

Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled

principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High

Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant

portion of which reads as under :-

"Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)

9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner manhandled

the public servants who were conducting the enquiry to prevent

unfair electoral practices.

(2026:JHHC:72)

10. It is a settled principle of law that while the High Court exercises

the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; it has to treat the contents

of the FIR to be true as it is. So, if the contents of the FIR are

considered to be true in its entirety, certainly, the assault as

mentioned in Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

11. It is profitable to quote Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code

which reads as under:-

"351. Assault.--Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault."

12. The explanation of Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code would

make it abundantly clear that the words which a person uses may

give to his gesture or preparation such a meaning as may make

those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.

13. So if the contents of the FIR are considered to be true in its

entirety, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the materials

in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable

under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner

and the co-accused persons by assaulting public servants

consisting of flying squad constituted by the Election Commission

of India in execution of their duty; as such public servant. The

contention of the petitioner that the DVD provided by the Deputy

(2026:JHHC:72)

Election Officer, Hazaribagh will go to show that he is innocent

cannot be considered by this Court because that is only, the

defence of the petitioner and the genuineness of the DVD is to be

tested and which can only be done by the trial court during the

full dress trial of the case but that cannot be a ground to quash the

entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

14. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.N. John vs.

State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the observation made in

that case was with respect of a First Information Report, where all

the offences involved are non-cognizable offences. The fact of that

case is different from the facts of this case, as in this case the

offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is a

cognizable offence. So, in this case, one of the offences is a

cognizable offence and some other offences are non-cognizable

offences. The mandate of law is crystal clear that the FIR can be

registered, if at least one of the offences involved in the case is a

cognizable offence and in such case police can conduct

investigation without any permission from any Magistrate. Since

the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal

Code, which is one of the offence for which FIR has been

registered and which allegation is found to be true also during the

investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that

this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be

(2026:JHHC:72)

quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra).

15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the

considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal

proceeding including the order dated 16.04.2020 passed by the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in

connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019, corresponding to

G.R. No. 447 of 2020 as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous

petition is to be allowed in exercise of the power under Section

528 of B.N.S.S., 2023.

16. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without

any merit is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5th January, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Uploaded on 07/01/2026