p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. 3967 of 2018 Bajrangi Yadav @ Bajrang Marik, aged about 54 years, Son of Bishnu Marik, resident of Village- Karhariya, P.O.- Karhariya, P.S.- Godda(M). District- Godda, presently residing at - Godda, P.O.- Godda, P.S.- Godda(T), District- Godda (Jharkhand) ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arbind Manjhi, Son of Late Tejnarayan Manjhi, resident of Village- Karhariya, P.O.- Karhariya, P.S.-Godda (M), District- Godda. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate. --------- Order No. 09 /Dated: 14th February, 2025 1. The instant application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.07.2017 passed in connection with Godda(M) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. case No. 426 of 2016, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gooda by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has taken cognizance against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of taking cognizance is not justified under law on the ground that the petitioner was not present in the village at the time of alleged occurrence. The call details and tower location of his mobile number is showing that petitioner was not present in the village Karhairya at the place of occurrence. p. 2 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is peace loving citizen and has been dragged in this case due to previous enmity. The informant parties have suspicion that the petitioner was helping the other villagers and due to this reason, the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. If the order impugned is not allowed, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. It is further submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner only to harass and blackmail him and this is complete abuse of process of the court. 5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that in this case charge sheet was filed and after taking cognizance, charges have also been framed and trial has proceeded and two witnesses have already been examined in this case. Petitioner has not challenged the order of framing charge. Therefore, this petition may be disposed of with at liberty to take all the defences as pointed out here in this case at proper stage of the trial. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the substantive submission of learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 7. Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all the matters taken before this court at an appropriate stage of the trial. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/