[2025:JHHC:33696] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2534 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2534 of 2018 ------ Md. Firoz Ansari, aged about 37 years, son of Israfil Ansari, resident of Naro, Nagri, P.O. & P.S.- Nagri, District- Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Syed Sadique Ali, son of Late Safdur Ali, resident of Abdul Karim Lane, Purani Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution as well as the First Information Report in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding the G.R. Case No.1832 of 2018; wherein though the police submitted Final Form but did not send up the petitioner for trial, on the ground that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and a protest petition was filed by the complainant- informant but without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned [2025:JHHC:33696] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2534 of 2018 Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has treated the protest petition as a complaint but he has not followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand fairly submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has treated the protest petition as a complaint but has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27, para-42 of which reads as under:- “42. In the facts of this case, having regard to the nature of the allegations contained in the protest petition and the annexures which essentially consisted of affidavits, if the Magistrate was convinced on the basis of the consideration of the final report, the statements under Section 161 of the Code that no prima facie case is made out, certainly the Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint. The fact that he may have jurisdiction in a case to treat the protest petition as a complaint, is a different matter. Undoubtedly, if he [2025:JHHC:33696] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2534 of 2018 treats the protest petition as a complaint, he would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code if the latter section also commends itself to the Magistrate. In other words, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses would have to be examined. No doubt, depending upon the material which is made available to a Magistrate by the complainant in the protest petition, it may be capable of being relied on in a particular case having regard to its inherent nature and impact on the conclusions in the final report. That is, if the material is such that it persuades the court to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer, cognizance could be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code for which there is no necessity to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code. But as the Magistrate could not be compelled to treat the protest petition as a complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. Therefore, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, we cannot support the decision of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) that if the Magistrate treats the protest petition as a complaint, he would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the complainant and his witnesses have to be examined. 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is apparent that though the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has treated the protest petition as a complaint but has not followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has not examined the complainant or any inquiry witness but without following the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution as well as the First Information Report in connection with [2025:JHHC:33696] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2534 of 2018 Nagri P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding the G.R. Case No.1832 of 2018, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution as well as the First Information Report in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding the G.R. Case No.1832 of 2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi or its successor court may pass a fresh order in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 20/11/2025