IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1798 of 2024 ------

Sudama Choudhary, aged about 69 years, son of Late Ramayan Choudhary, resident of Village Kurmidih, P.O. Kurmidih, P.S.

Balidih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sandeep Jaiswal son of Sri Prasad Jaiswal

3. Satish Jaiswal, son of Sri Prasad Jaiswal.

Both resident of Jainamore, near Tripathi Patrol Pump, P.O.

Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Seema Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.55 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision and also the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.185 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.950 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted but has not taken cognizance of the other offences, which the petitioner, claims to have also been made out on the basis of the materials collected during the investigation but which offences has not been mentioned in the charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though other offences are also made out the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, ought to have taken cognizance of those offences as well, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

4. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully 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 observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:-

“15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the t