Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Wamla Choularoong @ Wannisa Chaibamrung aged about 26 years, d/o Prachnap Chaiyabamrung – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.1233 of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Md. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate, Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P.
A Magistrate is statutorily restricted from adding or subtracting offence sections when taking cognizance of a police report; such adjustments are reserved for the trial stage upon framing of charges. Quashing proceedings is unjustifiable when the record presents direct and specific allegations requiring trial.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offence - Powers of Magistrate - A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence based on a police report lacks the authority to add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; such power is exclusively reserved for the trial court to exercise at the stage of framing of charges under the relevant procedural provisions. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Quashing of Proceedings - Criminal proceedings - Where allegations in a police report are direct and specific, particularly regarding illegal activities and document forgery, and the matter is pending the framing of charges, it is premature and inappropriate to quash the criminal proceedings. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings, contending that the allegations of involvement in commercial sex work near public spaces and the use of forged identification were false. The respondent argued that specific allegations existed against the petitioners and that the Magistrate was legally restricted from altering sections at the stage of cognizance.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a Magistrate is precluded from amending sections of offences upon receipt of a police report. The court further observed that since the matter was at a nascent stage and the record contained sufficient material to constitute the alleged offences, the prayer for quashing was meritless.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the Magistrate acted within their authority during the cognizance stage and whether the criminal proceedings against the accused warranted quashing.
Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate cannot modify offence sections during cognizance; this power is exercisable by the court only at the trial stage during charge framing. Absent any procedural infirmity or lack of substantial allegations, criminal proceedings should not be prematurely terminated prior to the commencement of the trial.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and grounds of the challenge to the cognizance order and criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding the necessity of quashing criminal proceedings at the cognizance stage. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. limitations on a magistrate's authority to modify charges during cognizance versus the mandate at the framing of charge stage. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. formal dismissal of the petition due to the existence of prima facie evidence. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
By the Court:- I.A. No.13254 of 2025
2. Heard the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
4. Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Cr.M.P. No.1233 of 2025
1. 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 the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 01.08.2024 passed in G.R. Case No.1672 of 2024 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.146 of 2024 including the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.146 of 2024 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 420, 290, 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the citizens of Thailand, were indulging in prostitution within a distance of 200 Meters of places of public religious worship, educational institutions, hostel, hospital, nursing home and other public places. There is also allegation against the petitioners that the documents, they were having, were forged documents. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Lalpur P.S. Case No.146 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioners and on the basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed for consideration of framing of charge. It is next submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are false. They are not prostitutes rather they are the employees engaged in the Spa. Their documents are genuine. No offence in respect of which the cognizance has been taken is made out against any of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against each of the three petitioners and they were indulging in prostitution in the vicinity of the public places punishable under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Besides, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of forging their documents punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a Magistrate, at the time of taking cognizance, cannot add or subtract any Section of the offences, in respect of which the charge sheet has been submitted but the Magistrate or the concerned court is free to do the same, at the time of framing of charge under Section 216, 218 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that stage has yet to come. Besides, there are other accused persons in this case, so, all the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken nee
