Mishir Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

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 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathana) P.S. Case No.136 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2987 of 2021 as well as the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2023.

¶16

The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, being the members of an unlawful

¶17

¶18

Cr. M.P. No.332 of 2024

¶19

(2025:JHHC:37937)

¶20

assembly and being armed with deadly weapons used criminal force against the public servant – police officer as well as the informant deterring them from discharging their duty during COVID-19 Pandemic and indulged in the acts for the spread of the epidemic. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Nirsa (Kalubathana) P.S. Case No.136 of 2021 and after investigation of the case, finding the allegations against the petitioners to be true, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 188, 353, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disaster Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad basing upon the materials available in the record including the F.I.R., chargesheet and case-diary; found sufficient materials to prima facie constitute the said offences and issued summons to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.201 of 2023. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad considered paragraph-1 to 6 and paragraph-55 of the case-diary and found that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they were members of an unlawful assembly formed by them and violated the Covid 19 lockdown restrictions imposed by the competent public servant and used criminal force against the public servant- police officers in performing their duty and without finding any illegality or

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.332 of 2024

¶23

(2025:JHHC:37937)

¶24

impropriety in the order of the learned Magistrate, dismissed the Criminal Revision.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the body of the charge-sheet it has been mentioned that the petitioners were not sent up for trial for lack of evidence but in para-16 of the charge-sheet at the concluding paragraph, it has been mentioned that the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance of the offence and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has also erroneously dismissed the Criminal Revision. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶26

Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that because of apparent printing error in the body of the charge-sheet it has been mentioned that the petitioners have not been sent up for trial but keeping view the overwhelming evidence in the record ultimately the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge-sheet also against the petitioners as has been mentioned in paragraph-16 of the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has proceeded against the petitioners after finding prima facie case on the basis of the charge-sheet. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate and accordingly no illegality has been

¶27

¶28

Cr. M.P. No.332 of 2024

¶29

(2025:JHHC:37937)

¶30

committed by the learned Sessions Judge either. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶31

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the undisputed fact remains that in para16 of the charge-sheet it has categorically been mentioned by the Investigating Officer of the case that he is submitting charge-sheet against the petitioners, also besides the co-accused persons for having committed the offence, for which prima facie case was found by the learned Magistrate. In a portion of the charge-sheet i.e., paragraph-12 which relates to particulars of the accused persons not charge-sheeted, the names of the petitioners have been mentioned. Since there was contradiction in two portions of the same charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate basing upon the concluding paragraph of the charge-sheet, has accepted that, the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in the impugned order has categorically formed the opinion basing upon the materials available in paragraph-1 to 6 and paragraph-55 of the case-diary that the same is sufficient to prima facie show that there were enough materials in the record for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences for which it has found prima facie case and issued summons in paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect

¶32

¶33

Cr. M.P. No.332 of 2024

¶34

(2025:JHHC:37937)

¶35

that materials available in paragraph-1 to 6 and paragraph-55 of the case-diary that the same is sufficient to prima facie show that there were enough materials in the record for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences, for which it has found prima facie case, has not been controverted anywhere in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioners.

¶36

Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality either in the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathana) P.S. Case No.136 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2987 of 2021 or in the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2023.

¶37

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶38

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶39

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17^th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 03/01/2026

¶40

¶41

Cr. M.P. No.332 of 2024

Mishir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mishir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdeo Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashuthosh Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand