IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Jitendra Kumar Pradhan S/o Jagabandu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.425 of 2025
Decided on : 25-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual details of the incident involved. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding requirement of sanction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on legality of actions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. criminal proceedings quashed due to lack of sanction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final orders and disposal of the petition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT against the petitioner.
3. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner is a personnel of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was a general duty constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
4. The brief fact of the case is that because of naxalites’ movement in the place of occurrence locality, Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force was deployed in the locality of the place of occurrence and the petitioner was a part of that Central Reserve Police Force and in a joint operation with the local police, the petitioner was deployed in the locality as a part of the team. In the night of 19.03.2020, the naxalites fired upon a unit of the Battalion of that Central Reserve Police Force and the firing was returned by the Jawans of the Battalions of that Central Reserve Police Force. The exchange of firing continued for 10 to 15 minutes. On seeing that the CRPF team is dominating the naxalites, the naxalites fled away, taking advantage of the night. A meeting was called by the Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) along with the Superintendent of Police, Khunti and other connected police officers and it was decided that in the morning at around 4:00 AM to 4:30 AM, a joint team of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) QAT force, Khunti and QAT force Murhu will be sent as reinforcement. A motorcycle borne police and security forces party proceeded at 4:40 AM and another team was sent at 5:30 AM. There was a noise of 2-3 rounds of firing. The information was received by the informant-in-charge of 94-Battalion Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) that a person has sustained injury in firing. The person was shifted to hospital and upon enquiry, the informant came to know that the petitioner has fired upon the injured and the reason for firing is that at about 5:45 AM from the side of Kumardih, two persons riding a motorcycle at high speed were going towards school. The petitioner indicated the riders of the motorcycle to stop. The riders of the motorcycle stopped their motorcycle and when the petitioner reached near their motorcycle, the riders of the motorcycle threw something kept in a sack and wanted to flee way. The petitioner and others tried to stop them but they pushed the petitioner and fled away. They were directed to stop by being told loudly. It appeared to the petitioner and the force accompanying him that some explosive substances and arms have been kept in the sack. In the meantime, there was a sound of firing, hence, it appeared to the petitioner that the persons riding motorcycle are naxalites. Hence, in response to such firing, the petitioner in his self-defence also fired upon them and the injured sustained bullet injury on being fired by the petitioner. Later on, the injured was treated by the Doctor. Police registered Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant and took up investigation of the case. The sanction for prosecution of the petit
G.C. Manjunath & Others vs. Seetaram
Akhilesh Prasad vs. Union Territory of Mizoram
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.