( 2025:JHHC:27104 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3209 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3209 of 2021 1. Deepak Ram @ Deepak Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Ramchandra Ram 2. Anil Ram, son of Dwarika Ram @ Davrika Ram, aged about 40 years 3. Amit Kumar @ Amit Ram, aged about 26 years, son of Dwarika Ram 4. Ayodhya Ram, aged about 38 years, son of Nageshwar Ram All residents of village Mangura, P.O. & P.S. –Ichak, District – Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lakman Kumar Mahto, son of Baiju Majhto, village Mangura, P.O. & P.S. –Ichak, District –Hazaribagh …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 48 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2014, whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of law other than for which ( 2025:JHHC:27104 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3209 of 2021 the charge sheet was submitted as though the charge sheet was submitted only against one accused namely Ayodhya Ram for having committed the offences punishable under Section 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has taken cognizance for the offences such as 324/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3. 3. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, para -14 of which reads as under:- “14. But if a case is registered by the police based on the FIR registered at the police station under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and not by way of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, obviously the magisterial enquiry cannot be held in regard to the FIR which had been registered as it is the investigating agency of the police which alone is legally entitled to conduct the investigation and, thereafter, submit the charge-sheet unless of course a complaint before the Magistrate is also lodged where the procedure prescribed for complaint cases would be applicable. In a police case, however after submission of the charge-sheet, the matter goes to the Magistrate for forming an opinion as to whether it is a fit case for taking cognizance and committing the matter for trial in a case which is lodged before the police by way of FIR and the Magistrate cannot exclude or include any section into the charge-sheet after investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted by the police.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that therein it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if a case is registered by the police based on the F.I.R. registered at the police station and charge sheet is submitted, the Magistrate cannot exclude or include any Section ( 2025:JHHC:27104 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3209 of 2021 into the charge sheet after investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted by the police. Hence, it is submitted that the Magistrate having included three penal provisions of law i.e. Section 324, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the impugned order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 48 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2014 be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that once a charge sheet is submitted, the Magistrate cannot exclude or include any Section of any penal provision of law in the charge sheet after investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been submitted by the police and the same can only be done at the time of consideration of framing of charge under Section 216, 218 of under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 48 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2014 is not sustainable in law as the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh has ( 2025:JHHC:27104 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3209 of 2021 included the penal provisions of law punishable under Section 324, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 48 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1030 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. 7. The case is remanded to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh or its successor court, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th August, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-