2025:JHHC:23166 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr). No. 815 of 2023 ---- Shishir Toppo, S/o Hanuk Toppo, R/oVillage Kochedega, PO- Kochedega, PS- Simdega, District Simdega, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police, PO+PS-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. Superintendent of Police, Simdega 4. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega 5. Muffasil Police Station, Simdega through its officer in-charge, PO Kochedega, PS Muffasil, District- Simdega 6. Central Bureau of Investigation. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. PP for CBI ---- 09/28.07.2025 The petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition has prayed for appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the FIR bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 05/2023 registered under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 332/ 333/ 307/ 504/ 120B/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code and staying all proceedings in the said FIR. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent concern to initiate departmental enquiry against the Circle Officer, Pratap Minj, Executive Magistrate Pankaj Kumar Bhagat and the then Muffasil P.S. in- charge Dev Kumar Das and other accused officers. 2. On 09.03.2023 at around 7:00 PM, Circle Officer Pratap Minj received a phone call reporting that two men were caught with black-marketed PDS rice. Around 9:15 PM, he reached the location and found the two accused and a crowd led by Mukhiya Shishir Toppo. When the officer asked for a written complaint, they started shouting, accusing the officers of protecting the PDS dealer, and then attacked them. Pankaj Kumar Bhagat, Executive Magistrate, was assaulted and he barely managed to escape. The 2025:JHHC:23166 -: 2 :- attack was led by the Mukhiya and the villagers, who tried to stop the officers from doing their duty and even attempted to kill them. Based on these allegations, a First Information Report being Muffasil Police Station Case No.05 of 2023 was instituted against the petitioner being Mukhiya and others. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report is clearly false and with cooked up facts, and the officers allegedly threatened the villagers of filing false cases and sending them to jail. He further stated that it is evident from the video recordings attached to the petition that Pankaj Kumar Bhagat was in a drunken state. He submits that there is clear misuse of power by government officials, who are trying to harass the villagers with a false case. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, stated that Courts can use their special powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in certain situations to stop misuse of the legal process or to ensure justice. One such situation is when a criminal case is clearly filed with bad intentions, to wreak vengeance, or to harass someone due to personal grudges. He further submits that this is not the first time the accused officers have acted illegally. They have harassed villagers before, and as the petitioner and others have spoken out against them, this First Information Report has been lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the Circle Officer has supported the allegations in the First Information Report. He further submits that the eye witnesses have also supported the allegations in the First Information Report. He also submits that the injury report of Pankaj Kumar Bhagat shows a simple injury caused by a blunt object. He further submits that the petitioner also has Criminal Antecedent. He lastly submits that as cognizable offence is made out, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. 5. According to the First Information Report, the villagers started abusing and attacking the officers. The attack was reportedly led by the Mukhiya and others, who conspired together, obstructed government officials from performing official duty, and even tried to assault the officers. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the allegations are serious in nature which involves making unlawful assembly, obstruction of public servants in discharge of official duty, assault. All the acts make out a cognizable offence. 2025:JHHC:23166 -: 3 :- 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others versus Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 held that a criminal proceeding can only be quashed in exceptional cases, such as where the First Information Report is false, frivolous, or is an abuse of the legal process. However, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR does not fall within any of the exceptional categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing of a First Information Report. 8. Further, there was no justification to quash the First Information Report at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the investigation. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 527 held that at the stage of deciding as to whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed or not at the threshold, the Court has to see the allegation in the FIR, the police report and the material collected during investigation in their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made out or not. It is necessary to quote paragraph 15 of the said judgment which is hereunder- 15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI and Others versus Tapan Kumar Singh reported in (2003) 6 SCC 175 has held that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. What is of significance is that the information must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and it is only after a complete investigation he may be able to report on the truthfulness of the information. 11. In this case in the case dairy there are statements of eye witnesses who have supported the allegations made in the First Information Report which clearly suggest that the petitioner was involved in abusing and 2025:JHHC:23166 -: 4 :- attacking the officers on duty, along with the villagers, thus the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. 12. In view of what has been held and observed above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. This Criminal writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.)