Dismissed¶28

Balram Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Home

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2025W.P.(Cr.)/368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: locus standi; absolute stranger; third-party writ petition; Article 226; NDPS Act investigation; Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 25 of 2021; N.D.P.S. Case No. 34/2021; Vaibhav Mani Tripathi (Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag); Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 734; cost Rs. 5,000 to JHALSA; Public Demand Recovery Act. Disposition: writ petition dismissed with costs by single judge (Ananda Sen, J.), High Court of Jharkhand, 19.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is an absolute stranger to the criminal case — neither accused, suspect, witness nor informant — and therefore has no locus standi to file the writ petition. ¶22

Balram Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:16271

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

WP(Cr.) No.368 of 2025

¶4

¶5

Balram Kachhap S/o Suresh Kachhap, R/o House No. 65-A, Doria Toli, Balalong, P.O. Balalong, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, District Ranchi Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag.

¶10

The Officer In-charge of Lohsighna Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Lohsinghna, District Hazaribag.

¶11

Sri Vaibhav Mani Tripathi, son of not known to the petitioner, District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag now posted at Ranchi, P.O. Court Compound, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶12

…. Respondents

¶13

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG …......

¶14

04 /19.06.2025: Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶16

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction /directions or a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondents particularly the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to complete the investigation in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 25 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021, registered for the offence under Section 21(b), 21(c), 22(b) and 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the court of Shri B. K. Pandey Addl. S. J. VII, Hazaribag, in N.D.P.S. case No.34/2021

¶17

ii. To take legal action against the private respondent no.5 (Sri Vaibhav Mani Tripathi) as his name has come in the case diary during investigation and several staffs of Sub-Registry Office, Hazaribag have taken his name in their confessional statement before the police.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case it is reflected in the case diary that one Rajesh Mishra has been

¶19

2025:JHHC:16271

¶20

falsely implicated in this case at the instance of senior officers of the registry office. He further submits that the name of respondent no.5 has come in the confessional statements of the other accused persons and therefore it is he who should be interrogated by the police and should be arrested. He further submits that Rajesh Mishra is an RTI activist and therefore he has been falsely implicated in this case on the instructions of District Sub- Registrar, Hazaribagh Vaibhav Mani Tripathi (respondent no.5). 4. Learned counsel representing the State raises a preliminary objection and submits that the petitioner has got not locus standi to file a writ petition as the petitioner is an absolute stranger. Thus, he submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

After hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not at all interested in the outcome of the case rather he wants only that the investigation should be conducted against the respondent no.5.

¶22

Further the petitioner has not produced any material on record which could suggest that how the petitioner is related to the criminal case. Admittedly, he is neither an accused nor a suspect (at this stage) nor witness nor informant. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has got no locus to file this writ petition being an absolute stranger.

¶23

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P.” reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 has observed that the court should not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if his/her fundamental rights are not affected. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:

¶24

Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular

¶25

2025:JHHC:16271

¶26

person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.”

¶27

In the instant case, I could not find anything which can suggest that the petitioner is related in anyway in this case. From the argument and the prayer, it gives an impression that he has been setup by someone.

¶28

Thus, considering the submissions of the learned counsels and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus in this case. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be recovered under the Public Demand Recovery Act, if not deposited within 45 days from today.

¶29

The cost should be deposited with JHALSA.

¶30

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA.

¶31

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶32

Tanuj/

Balram Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeet Kumar Alias Sanjit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samiullah Quraishi Alias Samiullha Quraishi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mamta Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amresh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Sonkar @ Rajendra @ Rajender Sokar Vs the State of Jharkhand