2025:JHHC:17326 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.673 of 2024 …. 1. Kamlesh Singh aged 46 years, Son of Late Bhola Singh, 2. Antardeshi Singh, aged 41 years, son of Late Bhola Singh, 3. Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh aged 35 years, son of Dinesh Singh 4. Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh, aged 43 years, son of Awdesh Singh, 5. Shiv Singh @ Shiv Kumar Singh aged 54 years, son of Ram Surat Singh, 6. Rohit Singh @ Priyanshu Ranjan aged 31 years, son of Nagendra Singh 7. Bittu Singh @ Sujit Kumar Singh aged 34 years, son of Vijay Singh; All are resident of village- Baherwa, P.O. + P.S.- Kandi & District- Garhwa ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Budhan Ram son of Madho Ram; Resident of village – Harijan tola, Dhabariya, P.O. & P.S.- Kandi & District- Garhwa ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Gopal Krishna Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Singh, Advocate …… Order No.06/23.06.2025 I.A. No.11165 of 2024 I.A. No.11165 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay of 1069 days in filing this instant Criminal Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that earlier cognizance order was passed on 17.07.2019 but the appellant had not the knowledge about the same and in the meantime, COVID-2019 pandemic started, which was in force from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and hence there was no limitation. 2025:JHHC:17326 2 It is submitted that after issuance of summons the appellants has filed ABA No.1332 of 2023 which was rejected on 08.01.2024 and thereafter the appellant has moved before this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.42 of 2024 which was withdrawn on 09.07.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court and then the appellant had again filed Cr.M.P. No.2466 of 2024 which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court and hence this Criminal Appeal has been filed and hence the appellant could not file this Criminal Appeal within time and hence the delay of 1069 days in filing this Criminal Appeal may be condoned. 3. Learned APP and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has no raised objection. 4. Although, this Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the appellant in the Memo Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and in view of the averments made in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 of the I.A. No. 11165 of 2024 and the delay of 1069 days in filing the instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby condoned. Thus, I.A. No. 11165 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr.A.(SJ) No.673 of 2024 6. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order taking cognizance dated 17.07.2019 passed by District and Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa by which the Court has taken cognizance against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341,324,353,504,506 of IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2025:JHHC:17326 3 7. As per FIR, while the informant namely Budhan Ram was doing the work in the wire of electric pole then the appellants are alleged to have arrived there and then abused the Informant in the name of his caste and also assaulted him and due to which he sustained injuries and they were taken to be drawn in a well said by the villagers. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the passed order dated 17.07.2019 is none speaking one. It is submitted that no reason has been assigned by the learned Court below for taking cognizance under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC ST Act, while the police has submitted chargesheet only under Sections 341,324,353,504,506 under the provisions of IPC. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1028 of 2020 vide order dated 10.09.2020 by which order taking cognizance is set aside and such case is remitted back for passing fresh order and hence the impugned order may be set aside and the order may be remitted back for passing a fresh order. 10. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellant the Informant was abused in the name of his caste and also assaulted him and hence there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and 11. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that the appellants had abused the Informant in the name of his caste and 2025:JHHC:17326 4 also assaulted him due to which the Informant had sustained serious injuries and hence the order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interreference is required in this case. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the informant. 13. It appears that the FIR was lodged on 02.02.2018 for the offences under Sections 147,323,504,307 of IPC and Section 3(r)(s)(w)(i)(4) of ST/ST Act. 14. It appears that after investigation, Police has submitted that chargesheet against the appellants under Sections 147,341,323 of IPC. 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below had taken the cognizance on 17.07.2019 for the offences under Sections 353,504,506,324,341 of IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC / ST Act. 16. It appears that the appellants had earlier filed ABA No.1332 of 2023 which was withdrawn before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar). Thereafter, the appellant has filed Cr.M.P. No.2466 of 2024 which has been withdrawn with the liberty to file on 27.08.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court. 17. It is well settled that in order taking cognizance need not to be elaborative and this Court had taken cognizance earlier in the year 2019 and this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below. 18. It is well settled that while passing order taking cognizance no detail order is required to be. 19. It has been held in the case of Bhushan Kumar and Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. reported in 2012 (5) SCC 424 and Pramila Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2025:JHHC:17326 5 reported in 2025 SC Online SC 886. 20. It also appears that the reliefs which appellants could not get directly, they are trying to get it indirectly. 21. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 22. Accordingly, This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.673 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-