[ 2025:JHHC:31566] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 Kaish @ Kaish Kumar, aged about - 29 yrs, S/o. Shri. Biresh kumar, R/o. Flat No. 402, Shivani Apartment, Julu Park, P.O. + P.S.- Sadar, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nilkant Vishwakarma, S/o. Late Karu Mistri, R/o. Mohalla-Kumhar Toli, New Colony, P.O. P.S. Sadar, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Prateek Sen, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 2191 of 2018 as well as the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was driving his motorcycle in a manner so rash and negligent, so as to endanger human life and likely to cause hurt and injury to any person and while driving such motorcycle, caused grievous hurt to the complainant- who was repairing the fault developed in his motorcycle, by parking his motorcycle by dashing him and caused grievous hurt to the complainant by such rash and negligent act [ 2025:JHHC:31566] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 endangering the life of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, learned CJM, Hazaribagh, has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC, as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jasbir Singh vs. State, wherein in a judgment of Cr. Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC, the Delhi High Court, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported (1972) 3 SCC 393, Meharaj Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188, Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 8 SCC 714, Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775, Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, regarding the consequence of delay in lodging the FIR without any explanation. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of three and half months in filing the complaint, as though the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 27.07.2018, the complaint was filed on 20.11.2018. It is further submitted that for the self-same occurrence, after a little more than one month from the date of occurrence on 02.09.2018, Hazaribagh Sadar (Barabazar) P.S. case no. 396 of 2018 was registered, citing the complainant as an accused, in which the police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the IPC and the same learned CJM, Hazaribagh has also taken cognizance of the said offences. It is next submitted that the complainant surrendered in Sadar (Barabazar) P.S. case no. 396 of 2018 on 06.11.2018 and only after that, as a counterblast and to set up the [ 2025:JHHC:31566] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 defence, filed this complaint with a concocted story after due deliberation. 6. It is next submitted that the petitioner sustained injury in the said accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the complainant and was rushed to the hospital at Ranchi, where he was hospitalized for about one month, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and drawing attention of the court to the FIR of Sadar Hazaribagh (Barabazar) P.S. case no. 396 of 2018, it is submitted by learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 that in the FIR itself, it has categorically been mentioned by the informant himself that the petitioner also suffered injuries in the said accident and he was taken by the police in the PCR van to the Sadar hospital, Hazaribagh and in the ambulance, both the petitioner and the complainant, were transported to Ranchi being referred by the Sadar hospital, Hazaribagh; for better treatment. It is next submitted that in para 4 of the complaint, the explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, has been given, as complainant on approaching the police, police did not register the case of the complainant but went on giving false assurance of registering the case and upon enquiry, when ultimately the complainant came to know that no case has been registered, by the police upon his written report and lastly the complainant, filed this complaint but by that time, the delay had already occurred. It is next submitted that the principle of law regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is well settled but whether any prejudice is caused to the accused person of the case by delay in lodging the FIR and whether there was any satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the FIR, is a subject matter of the trial and this court cannot go into the details in exercise of power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. It is next submitted that it is [ 2025:JHHC:31566] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State Of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2001 6 SCC 181 that for a same occurrence, both the case and counter case are maintainable. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that there was a motor vehicle accident involving two motorcycles. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioner that the complainant –opp. Party no. 2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition, was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner; it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. As has rightly been submitted by learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held in para 27 of the judgment in the case of T.T.Antony vs. State Of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2001 6 SCC 181, that if the second or successive FIR, is a counter case, in connection with the same or connected cognizable offences, the same is not hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both the case and counter case be investigated further. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, this case is a counter case of Hazaribagh Sadar (Barabazar) P.S. case no. 396 of 2018 and the complainant has explained the delay in lodging the complaint. The sufficiency or the lack of it for the delay in lodging the FIR, is a subject matter of trial. It is a settled principle of law that, the sole ground of delay in lodging the complaint, is not by itself a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. The contention of the petitioner that the allegation made against him are not true, is the defence of the petitioner, which he can take during the trial of the case, but [ 2025:JHHC:31566] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3026 of 2024 it is a settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC by the High court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Awadh Kishore Gupta And Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2008 8 SCC 781. 10. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 13.06.2024 passed in in connection with Complaint Case no. 2191 of 2018 be quashed and set aside in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 13th October, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 31 / 10 /2025