Raj Kumar Kunwar Alias Ram Prasad Kunwar Alias Raju Layak Vs State of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:18006 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 573 of 2024

Raj Kumar Kunwar @ Ram Prasad Kunwar @ Raju Layak, son of Abadesh Kunwar, aged about 51 years old, resident of village – Bagbindha, P.O. –Gamhariyahat, P.S. Ramghar, District –Dumka (Jharkhand).

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand

…. Opp. Party

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate : Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in connection with N.D.P.S. Special No. 02 of

¶14

2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the investigation of which is going on at present against the petitioner.

¶15

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was involved in cultivation of poppy plant illegally. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came up during the investigation of the case. Charge sheet has been submitted against the co-accused

¶16

1

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2024

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:18006 )

¶19

Kanhai Mandal. Kanhai Mandal faced the trial vide N.D.P.S. Case No. 02 of 2015 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka but as the prosecution in the trial of Kanhai Mandal failed to prove seizure list as well as State Forensic Science Laboratory report during the trial and considering the evidence in the record in that case, the learned trial court acquitted the co-accused – Kanhai Mandal.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Kanhai Mandal has taken the name of the petitioner in his confessional statement, as the petitioner contested against one of the cousin brother of Kanhai Mandal in the Gram Panchayat Election in the year 2015. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the land measuring 8,000 Sq. Feet over which poppy plantation was found resulting in lodging of the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has been implicated in this case by the co-accused –Kanhai Mandal but the undisputed fact also remains that the investigation of the case is going on against the petitioner. It is then submitted that it is a settled principle of law that if there

¶22

is delay in conducting the investigation in a criminal case; for that sole reason, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed

¶23

2

¶24

Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2024

¶25

( 2025:JHHC:18006 )

¶26

against a person. It is also submitted that the undisputed fact remains that poppy plantation was found over 8000 Sq. feet of land in village –Dalkatta and Naya Tikar as admitted by the petitioner in para-14 of this criminal miscellaneous petition by the petitioner himself but the only ground upon which, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegations against him are false. It is next submitted that only after completion of the investigation, which is going on at present, it can be ascertained whether there is sufficient material against the petitioner to proceed against him or not. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition ought not to be quashed and this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that merely because there is delay in investigation of a case, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and set aside. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person. Merely, because the prosecution could not establish the charge against the co-accused, that is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. The allegation against the

¶28

3

¶29

Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2024

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:18006 )

¶31

petitioner so far is separate and distinct as that of the co-accused person.

¶32

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. in connection with N.D.P.S. Special No. 02 of 2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be quashed against the petitioner by this Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶34

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶35

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19^th June, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶36

4

¶37

Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2024

Raj Kumar Kunwar Alias Ram Prasad Kunwar Alias Raju Layak v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Kunwar Alias Ram Prasad Kunwar Alias Raju Layak v. 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

Srinivasalu Basapatti Alias Sinu Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahnawaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satya Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mamta Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jade Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand