(2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 672 of 2025 Manoj Mehta @ Manoj Kumar Mehta, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Biraini Mehta, R/o Village –Soba, P.O. –Imannagar, Bariwa, P.S. – Haidernagar & District –Palamau .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhirgunandan Mehta, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Nathuni Mehta, R/o Village Soba, P.O. –Imannagar, Bariwa, P.S. – Haidernagar & District –Palamau. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate ….. By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 10.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the said Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020 has been registered involving the offences (2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 2 punishable under Section 147/148/149/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act inter-alia against the petitioner. The place of occurrence is in village –Shoba under Haidarnagar Police Station in the district of Palamau (Jharkhand). The anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 in A.B.A. No. 7250 of 2020. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal ) No. 6637 of 2021 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the said order by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner took the plea before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that he was under transfer order and has already been transferred to New Delhi on duty with Central Reserve Police Force and thus on the date of occurrence he was not present at the place of occurrence. In the said Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022, though the I.O. of the case was expected to verify the genuineness of the plea taken by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said appeal but by date of final order passed in the said Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022, the I.O. did not verify the same; leading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to observe that the investigation is made in a shoddy manner. Subsequently, it transpired from the charge sheet submitted by the police against the co-accused persons that police verified the said plea of the petitioner and it was found out that the petitioner was at Delhi with his Central Reserve Police Force Batallion from 17.03.2020 to 16.06.2020. So his (2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 3 presence at the place of occurrence on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 14.06.2020 between 09:00 A.M. to 04:00 P.M. is ruled out. As the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, police did not send him up for trial, because of lack of evidence against him for having committed the offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class in the impugned order took note of the fact that police has not sent up the petitioner for trial because of lack of evidence against him but observed that there is no cogent ground mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner was present elsewhere on the date and time of occurrence and went on to hold that there is sufficient ground for proceeding inter-alia against the petitioner also for having committed the offences punishable under Section 147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons to the petitioner also. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was at Delhi with the Central Reserve Police Force Batallion from 17.03.2020 to 16.06.2020. The same was found out after the I.O. of the case verified the plea of the petitioner taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; after observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022. So the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by observing that there is no cogent ground mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner was present elsewhere on the date and time of occurrence though not only the same has been mentioned (2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 4 in the case diary but also the same has been mentioned in the charge sheet itself, which was submitted against the co-accused persons dated 23.02.2024 and by which the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider that this is a frivolous case against the petitioner which has been filed for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is next submitted that the witnesses namely Nagendra Yadav and Pankaj Kumar Kushwaha in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have specifically stated that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and he was in his official duty, as has been mentioned in para -186 & 187 of the case diary and similar statement has also been made by the witnesses namely Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Gyan Ranjan Kumar Mahto; which is evident from para -194 of 195 of the case diary and this fact has been admitted by the independent witnesses of the case. 5. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in AIR 2015 SC 923, para -47 of which reads as under:- “47 However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain (2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 5 detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad-in-law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” and submits that the impugned order is in teeth of the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at village –Shoba on the date of occurrence i.e. on 14.06.2020 and he was present with his Central Reserve Police Force Battalion at Delhi and thereafter in Sambalpur in the State of Odisha on the way to going to Bhubaneswar in the State of Odisha. The undisputed fact remains that this fact has also been supported by the witnesses whose statement has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as has been mentioned from para -186, 187, 194 & 195 of the case diary. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, has committed a grave illegality by observing that there is no cogent ground mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner was present elsewhere on the date and time of the (2025:JHHC:12913) Cr.M.P. No.672 of 2025 6 occurrence. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020 so far as it relates to the learned Magistrate forming an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding inter-alia against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 9. 9. Accordingly the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020 so far as it relates to the learned Magistrate forming an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding inter-alia against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st April, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-