Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:594 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4546 of 2022

¶3

Ajit Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Shivnath Mahto,

¶4

Shivnath Mahto, aged about 69 years, Son of Ramji Mahto,

¶5

Anil Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Shivnath Mahto,

¶6

Sunita Kumari @ Sunita Devi, aged about 31 years, daughter of Shivnath Mahto, all residents of Koiri Mohalla, Tiwari Tola, P.O. and P.S. –Lohardaga, District –Lohardaga.

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Mamta Kumari, wife of Sanjit Mahto and daughter of Govind Mahto, at present resident of village –Chhattarmandu, P.O. – Chhattarmandu, P.S. and District –Ramgarh.

¶11

Opp. Parties

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Petitioners : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶15

By the Court:-

¶16

Heard the parties.

¶17

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners including the order dated 13.05.2022, passed in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 383 of 2022 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Chief

¶18

1

¶19

Cr.M.P. No.4546 of 2022

¶20

( 2026:JHHC:594 )

¶21

Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh under the erroneous impression that the charge sheet was submitted against them even though they were not sent up for trial because of lack of evidence against them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is next fixed to 26.02.2026. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Rabiul Shikh Vs. The State of Jharkhand, in Cr.M.P. No. 2966 of 2022 dated 13.06.2023 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

¶22

of Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465 , para -23 of which reads as under:-

¶23

“ 23. In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, it was befitting for the Magistrate to pass a well-reasoned order, explaining why she was taking a view different from the one prayed for in the closure report. It is also expedient for the Magistrate to record reasons why the request made by the complainant (Dr Rajesh Talwar) praying for further investigation, was being declined. Even the fact, that the complainant (Dr Rajesh Talwar) was being summoned as an accused, necessitated recording of reasons. An order passed in the circumstances noted hereinabove, without outlining the basis therefor, would have been injudicious. Certainly the Magistrate's painstaking effort needs a special commendation.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶24

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India appreciated the conduct of the Magistrate to pass well-reasoned order explaining why she was taking a view different from the one prayed for in the closure report.

¶25

2

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.4546 of 2022

¶27

( 2026:JHHC:594 )

¶28

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh was under the erroneous impression that charge sheet has also been submitted against the petitioners, hence the same is not sustainable in law.

¶29

The learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh was under the erroneous impression that charge sheet was also submitted against the petitioners but the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh was under the erroneous impression, while passing the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 that charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners also, even though the petitioners were not sent up for trial ,because of lack of evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 383 of 2022 is not sustainable in law.

¶31