( 2025:JHHC:22255 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2772 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2772 of 2022 ------ Shyam Kishor Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of B-2/F-3/B, Moon City, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S.-Mango Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Sri Rameshwar Singh, son of Late Shyam Bahadur Singh, resident of L-4/12, Gandak Road, P.O. & P.S.-Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, at present residing at L-4/88, Garam Nala, Bara Maidan, P.O. & P.S.-Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr.Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has returned with the report that the opposite party no.2 has died. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding being Sakchi P.S. Case No.269 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2967 of 2012 ( 2025:JHHC:22255 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2772 of 2022 including the order dated 02.09.2013 whereby and where under the cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum inter alia against the petitioner; overlooking the fact that the petitioner was not sent up for trial. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits by drawing attention of the Court to Page No.7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.05.2024 which is the fourth page of the charge sheet and which relates to the petitioner as the accused person, that against serial no.13, 14 & 15 and at serial no.19, it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioner could not be sent up for trial. It is further submitted that in the charge sheet, it has also been mentioned in the bottom three lines of the last page of the charge sheet that inter alia the petitioner is not sent up for trial by mentioning the name of the petitioner, at serial no.4 before the last sentence, it has also been mentioned that inter alia the petitioner is not sent up for trial but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum committed a grave error apparent on the record in passing the order dated 02.09.2013 under the impression that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 02.09.2013 is not sustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P; but fairly submits that it is a fact that in internal page-4 and the last page, that is, at least on 2 pages it has been mentioned that the petitioner is not sent up for trial by ( 2025:JHHC:22255 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2772 of 2022 mentioning in Hindi that “Utpreshit Nahi Kiya Jaa Saka”. It is lastly submitted that as the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance based on the materials available in the record, hence, 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 undisputed facts remains that at least at two places in the charge sheet that is at page no.4 and the last page, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is not sent up for trial but it appears from the perusal of the order dated 02.09.2013 that though the petitioner has not been sent up for trial, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum has taken cognizance under the impression that the petitioner was sent up for trial. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum has committed an error apparent on the face of the record, rendering, the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum not sustainable in law, hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. 9. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj