(2025:JHHC:23574) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2126 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2126 of 2019 ------ Madhusudan Mandal @ Madhu Sudan Mandal, aged about 64 years Son of Late Surjo Narayan Mandal @ Surya Kant Mandal, Resident of village- Bongai, Post Office & Police Station – Baram, District- Singhbhum East (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjit Mandal son of late Amulya Mandal 3. Eti Mandal, wife of Ranjit Mandal, both Sl. No.2 & 3 resident of village- Baogai, Post Office & Police Station- Baram, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth S. A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.432 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has dismissed the revision petition. Further, a prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jamshedpur in C-1 Case No.651 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint. (2025:JHHC:23574) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2126 of 2019 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.651 of 2017 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur alleging that on 07.03.2017 at 6:00 pm, the offence punishable under Sections 448/452/379 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the proposed accused persons of the case, but in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant as well as in their statement the enquiry witnesses of the complaint, did not say anything happening on 07.03.2017 rather they stated about the occurrence which happened on 18.01.2017 and which was not the subject matter of the complaint. As there was no material in support of the complaint of the complainant; the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.432 of 2018 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2019 keeping in view the discrepancies and absence of any material to support the contents of the complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned judicial Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the statement under the solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses was sufficient to constitute cognizable offences. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that in view of the discrepancies in the statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, there were ample reasons for the learned Magistrate, to be satisfied (2025:JHHC:23574) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2126 of 2019 that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the proposed accused persons of the complaint. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint and the Criminal Revision has also rightly been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puja Ravinder Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1 reiterating its observations made in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited vs. Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Magistrate has to examine nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing home the charge to the accused. It was also observed that it is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that there is no material in the record to support the contents of the complaint that the alleged occurrence took place on 07.03.2017 as stated in the complaint. There is absolutely no material that could be brought on the record by the complainant either in his statement on solemn affirmation or through the enquiry witness that anything at all, happened on 07.03.2017. (2025:JHHC:23574) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2126 of 2019 8. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.432 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur or the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jamshedpur in C-1 Case No.651 of 2017, as already indicated above. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh