Balkishun Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

A. “The respondents be given direction to add the Section 307, 379, 385, 342, 148 of the I.P.C. in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.491/2023. Now this case is pending before the Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar.

¶26

B. That respondent no.5 I.O. of this case add the three member medical board report in the case diary.

¶27

C. The respondent given to direction the follow-up order of respondent no. 2 & 3 and compliance the order of the respondent no. 2 & 3.”

¶28

2. Heard the parties.

¶29

3. After going through the materials on record, I find that

¶30

the main grievance of the petitioner is that Sections 307, 379, 385,

¶31

1

¶32

2025:JHHC:20480

¶33

342 and 148 IPC, should be added which was removed after investigation.

¶34

4. The case of the petitioner is that after rejection of the bail applications, the police has submitted final report wherein the police found that the cases are punishable under the bailable Sections only and the final report is only against five accused persons. The petitioner now claims that all the aforesaid Sections which were initially in the F.I.R. are attracted in this case but the police with a malafide intention has removed the same making the incident a less graver one. Thus, he prays that the aforesaid Sections be added.

¶35

5. The finding of the police in the charge-sheet and Sections mentioned therein are not binding upon the Court. The Court at the time of taking cognizance should go through the entire case diary and thereafter may come to a different conclusion also. If the Court feels that some of the Sections which have not been incorporated in the charge-sheet in respect of which the cognizance needs to be taken, can take cognizance also under those Sections, which are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot direct the Trial Court or the cognizance taking Court to take cognizance in particular Section. Since the petitioner has got alternative remedy, he should approach the Trial Court for redressal of his grievance.

¶36

6. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum.

¶37

7. With the aforesaid observation, this Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed .

¶38

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶39

Prashant.Cp-3

¶40

2

Balkishun Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkishun Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradip Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Prakash Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gulbi Mosomat Alias Gulbi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Mandal Alias D Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Haji Rizwan Akhtar Khan Alias Rizwan Akhtar Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand