Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 51 of 2025 --------- 1.Manoj Kr. Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o Harendra Narayan Singh 2.Preety Singh @ Priti Singh, aged about 35 years, wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, Both residents of Kalpara Near R.K. Palace Hotel, PO + PS & District-Pakur (Jharkhand) ..… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Puran Mandal, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Mahesh Mandal, resident of Mohalla-Kalpara PO + PS & District- Pakur (Jharkhand) ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate ---------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 03/21.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the Order dated 27.09.2024, passed in S.C./S.T. P.S Case No.06 of 2024, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024 by Sri Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pakur by which cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(D), 3(1)(DH) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, presently pending in the Court of Sri Kumar Kranti Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 2 Prasad, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pakur. 2. As per F.I.R., lodged on 20.03.2024, it is alleged that on 18.03.2024, at around 8 a.m. in the morning, while the Informant-Respondent No.2 was going to catch the train, then Appellant No. 1, namely Manoj Kr. Singh came from behind and thrashed him on the ground and assaulted him and started pressing his neck and thereafter, he assaulted him by fists, whereas Appellant No.2, namely Preety Singh @ Priti Singh is alleged to have given rope and then the hands and legs of the Informant were tied and the wife, i.e. Appellant No.2, namely Preety Singh @ Priti Singh had also abused the Informant-Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and threatened him of dire consequences. It is further alleged that due to fist blow made by the Appellant No.1, namely Manoj Kumar Singh, teeth of the Informant-Respondent No.2 were broken and his mouth was full of blood and the accused persons had also snatched Rs.1,500/- cash, Pan Card, Voter Card, Adhar Card, Diary and spectacles etc from him. Thereafter, the police arrived and his hands and legs were untied. 3. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Informant. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants that the impugned order taking Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 3 cognizance, dated 27.09.2024, passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the case instituted by the Informant-Respondent No.2 against the appellants is false and concocted. It is submitted that Appellant No.2, namely Preety Singh @ Priti Singh has instituted Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024 under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 341, 323, 324 of I.P.C. on 20.03.2024 against the Informant-Respondent No.2 as on the date of occurrence the Informant-Respondent No.2 had caught her wrist and opened her clothes and due to which she became half naked and thereafter, her husband, i.e. the Appellant No.1, namely Manoj Kr. Singh arrived there and had caught hold of the Informant-Respondent No.2 and had informed the Police and the Police had taken the Informant- Respondent No.2 to the Police Station. It is submitted that even the wife of Informant-Respondent No.2 got instituted a case in the year 2019, i.e. Pakur P.S. S.C./S.T. Case No. 02 of 2019 against Appellant No.1, namely Manoj Kr. Singh, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the memo of the instant criminal appeal. It is further submitted that in the present case, i.e. S.C./S.T. P.S Case No.06 of 2024, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 4 arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024, the Police has submitted chargesheet against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 34 of I.P.C., however, the learned Court below has differed with the police report and has taken cognizance against the Appellants under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, apart from the provisions of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 and has submitted that the Court below has mechanically passed order without assigning any reason for differing with the Police Report and hence, the impugned Order dated 27.09.2024 may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is direct allegation against the Appellants for assaulting the Informant due to which his Tooth was broken and blood had started oozing out from his mouth and for abusing him in the name of his caste. It is submitted that the learned Court below can differ with the Police Report and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and hence, this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 5 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, i.e. Respondent No.2, after adopting the argument of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required of this Court. It is submitted that the Appellant No.1 is in the habit of assaulting and abusing the Informant-Respondent No.2 and earlier also one Baby Devi, i.e. wife of the Informant-Respondent No.2 had instituted S.C./S.T. Case No. 02 of 2019 under Sections 323, 324, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is pending before the learned Court below. It is further submitted that the tooth of the Informant-Respondent No.2 was broken, but the Police was in collusion with the Appellants and the Police had not submitted chargesheet under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that the Appellant No. 2, namely Preety Singh @ Priti Singh, in order to save her husband, had instituted a false case, i.e. Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024 under Sections 354-A, 354- B, 341, 323, 324 of I.P.C. on 20.03.2024 against the Informant-Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the C.C. T.V. footage was found by the Police in which the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 6 Appellants had been seen assaulting and abusing the Informant. It is submitted that the police had given bail on the same day. It is further submitted that the Appellant No.1 and one Harendra Narayan Singh @ Harendra Narayan Sinha had preferred Anticipatory Bail in connection with SC/ST Pakur P.S. Case No.02 of 2019 before this Court, which was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 611 of 2019, hence this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Informant-Respondent No.2, it reveals that there are case and counter case between the Appellants and the Informant-Respondent No.2. 8. It appears that Appellant No.2, namely Preety Singh @ Priti Singh previously had instituted Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024 against the Informant-Respondent No.2 under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 341, 323, 324 of I.P.C. on 20.03.2024 at around 1.30 p.m. in the Police Station 9. It further reveals that thereafter, the Informant-Respondent No.2 had instituted S.C./S.T. P.S Case No.06 of 2024, corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024 against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3(1)(D), 3(1)(DH) Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 7 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at 04.30 p.m. 10. It further reveals that although the Police had submitted chargesheet under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 34 of I.P.C. only against the Appellants, however, the learned Court below has differed with the Police Report and apart from Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 34 of I.P.C the learned Court below has taken cognizance also under Sections 3(1)(D), 3(1)(DH) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also under Section 307 I.P.C. 11. It further appears that no reason has been assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pakur while taking cognizance under Section 307 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(D), 3(1)(DH) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by passing the impugned order dated 27.09.2024, although the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pakur has differed with the Police Report. 12. From perusal of the Injury Report mentioned at Paragraph 33, it appears that one grievous injury was found on the person of the Informant-Respondent No.2 by the Doctor due to felling of tooth. 13. It appears from the Case Diary that no broken tooth was produced by the Informant- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 8 Respondent No.2 during the investigation, hence, the Police had submitted chargesheet under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 & 34 of I.P.C. and there is no X-Ray report. 14. It further reveals that though the chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 325 of I.P.C. but no serious bodily injury on the person of the Informant-Respondent No.2 had been found. Paragraph 33 of the Case Diary does not show any serious injury on the body of the Informant. 15. It has been held in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, at Para 14, 15, 16 and 22 as follows:- “Para 14:- But if a case is registered by the police based on the FIR registered at the police station under Section 154 CrPC and not by way of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC 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. Para 15:- The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 9 authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet. Para 16:- In the alternative, if a case is based on a complaint lodged before the Magistrate under Sections 190 or 202 CrPC, the Magistrate has been conferred with full authority and jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the complaint and thereafter arrive at a conclusion whether cognizance is fit to be taken on the basis of the sections mentioned in the complaint or further sections were to be added or subtracted. CrPC Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 10 has clearly engrafted the two channels delineating the powers of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry in a complaint case and police investigation based on the basis of a case registered at a police station where the investigating authorities of the police conduct investigation under Chapter XII and there is absolutely no ambiguity in regard to these procedures Para 22:- As a consequence of the aforesaid analysis, we although do not approve of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who permitted addition of three sections into the charge-sheet after the charge-sheet was submitted, we are further of the view that the Additional District and Sessions Judge and the High Court ought to have specified the correct course of action to be adopted by the Magistrate and the complainant/prosecution party, failure of which got the matter enmeshed into this litigation impeding the trial.” 16. So far the allegation that the Appellants have abused the Informant in the name of his caste is concerned, the same has not been found true by the Police after examination of the Informant-Respondent No.2 and the witnesses of nearby places. 17. There is nothing on record to show that the Informant-Respondent No.2 was abused in public view. From the F.I.R. it also appears that the hands and legs of the Informant were allegedly tied and thus, the possibility of public view is not made out in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. There is no bar for the Constitutional Courts to see any miscarriage of justice during the trial. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14217 ) 11 18. Under the circumstances, Order dated 27.09.2024, passed in S.C./S.T. P.S Case No.06 of 2024, corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024 by Shri Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pakur is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 19. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 51 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.