IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 958 of 2024

1. Saryu Prasad Verma, Aged about 50 years, Son of Late Gandoari Mahto, Resident of Village –Badki Dhanrai, P.O. & P.S. –Jainagar,

District -Koderma.

2. Dhaneshwar Thakur, Aged about 54 years, Son of Chhatu Thakur, Resident of Village –Badki Dhanrai, P.O. & P.S. –Jainagar, District –

Koderma. .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate

: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 12.04.2023 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 325, 353, 504, 506 & 34 in connection with Jainagar

(T.O.P) P.S. Case No. 236 of 2021.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

charge has not yet been framed against the petitioners and trial of

the case is yet to begin.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons used criminal force and deterred the public servant –police officer from discharging his duties by abusing him, causing hurt to the informant by dashing him with the motorcycle; by which the informant fell down and sustained injuries and assaulting the informant with kicks of legs and intentionally insulted the informant provoking him to cause breach of peace and criminally intimidated him, wrongfully restrained the informant, causing grievous hurt and also committed theft of mobile and Rs.1,100/- cash. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant police registered Jainagar (TOP) P.S. Case No. 236 of 2021 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation finding the allegation against the petitioners to be true, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 325, 353, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners as the informant was not on duty at the time of the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the only contention of the petitioners that one of the offences punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners and for that they want that the entire criminal proceeding be quashed and set aside, which prayer of the petitioner is illogical and without any merit. It is next submitted that a Magistrate cannot add or subtract any Section at the time of taking cognizance basing upon the police report. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma as admittedly offences other than Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma is made out against the petitioners. 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, para -15 of which reads as under:-

“15. The question, therefore, e