IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1882 of 2025

1. Krishna Nandan, aged about 69 years, son of late Brij Nandan Prasad, resident of Game-2, Grater Noida, P.O. & P.S.-Surajpur, Dist.-Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

2. Sourov Mukherjee @ Sourav Mukharjee, aged about 63 years, son of Amiya Bhushan Mukherjee, resident of Manick Bandhopadhyay Sarini, P.O. & P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata, West Bengal .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Moti Lal Soren, son of late Ghasi Ram Soren, resident of Gorogora/Baliguma, P.O.-Bhilaipahari, P.S.-MGM (Mango), Town-

Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Subhashis R. Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha G. Lakra, Advocate : Ms. Mrinalini A. Tete, Advocate : Mr. Elwin N. Tirkey, Advocate : Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate : Ms. Singi S. Demta, Advocate …..

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 order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 1791 of 2015 whereby and where under, in the same order the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has allowed the petition of the complainant to examine further witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and in the later part of the said order has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section

268 of B.N.S.S. for discharge.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur dealt with the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. from running page no. 148 of the brief to middle part of page no. 150 and in the entire running page nos. 148, 149 and till the second paragraph of page 150, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has reproduced the contents of the petition filed by the complainant and the rejoinder which was filed by the petitioners and thus quoting the contents of the petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has observed the following:-

“Heard and perused the case record, from perusal it appears that before charge evidence was closed on 02.07.2024. Now complainant wants to adduce witnesses complainant himself and other witnesses Rajesh Soren, Babulal Soren are material and important witnesses in this case.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, petition dated 30.08.2024 filed by the complainant Motilal Soren under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.”

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 402, paragraph no.27 of which reads as under:-

“27. Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Certainly recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to thes