Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Gopal Singhal @ Narendra Gopal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:33187]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3069 of 2025
------
1. Narendra Gopal Singhal @ Narendra Gopal Singh, s/o Late Bajrang Lal Singhal, aged 57 years, r/o Barakar, PO Barakar, PS Kulti, District Bardhman (WB).
2. Suman Kumar Choudhary, s/o Mahanand Chaudhary, aged 53 years, r/o G/2/4/1 Area No. 4, Maithan, PO & PS Chirkunda, District Dhanbad.
3. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, s/o Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, aged 41 years, r/o Singhpur, Gobrain, PO & PS Singhpur, District Bhagalpur (Bihar).
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate Ms. Anam Iqbal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution in connection with Telaiya P.S. case No.150 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.36 of 2024 including the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma.
1 Cr. M.P. No.3069 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:33187]
3. The brief fact of the case is that police after investigation of the said case, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 287, 304A, 201, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that charge has not been framed in this case. It is then submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 is the Director, petitioner No.2 is the Manager and the petitioner No.3 is Accountant of the Pratik Steels Casting Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. 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 submit that there is sufficient materials available in the record for the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 287, 304A, 201, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
2 Cr. M.P. No.3069 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:33187]
6. 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 held 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, para-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 time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed.
Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet."
that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge sheet based on 3 Cr. M.P. No.3069 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33187] the FIR on which investigation had been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge sheet, cannot fill up the lacuna, as the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report, cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance and 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be and the only remedy available to the prosecution, after submission of the charge-sheet, is to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge, to establish that on the given facts, the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed, can be allowed to be framed.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that though the charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma has taken cognizance of the other offences by adding Sections 287, 304A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the said order is not sustainable in law.
8. Accordingly, this case is remitted to the court of the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 07/11/2025 4 Cr. M.P. No.3069 of 2025