2025:JHHC:20384 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2025 Monu Kumar, S/o Mansaf Prasad, R/o J.P. Market, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S., Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjay Kumar Sah, S/o Late Mahant Sah, R/o Quarter No. H/146, Adarsh Nagar, Dhurwa Shiv Mandir Pipal Tree Mahaula, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Debarsi Mondal, Advocate : Mrs. Abhilasha Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No. 08 / Dated : 24.07.2025. 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2024 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3044 of 2024 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.563/2024 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 364/2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the F.I.R., some altercation took place on the eve of Chhath Puja on 19.11.2023 between the informant side and Manoj and Pintu. On 20.11.2023, it is alleged that Manoj and Pintu along with 8-10 other persons came to the shop of the informant and brutally assaulted him in which the brother of the informant was injured and the said incidence was witnessed by people of the locality as well as was recorded in the CCTV footage. 3. On the basis of statement given by Sanjay Kumar Sah, Dhurwa PS Case No. 364/2023 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Manoj, Pintu and other 8-10 unknown accused persons. 4. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet against four persons including petitioner namely Monu Kumar. 2025:JHHC:20384 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR and he was not even witnessed in CCTV footage and his implication is a product of afterthought. 6. Learned A.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that none other, but the injured himself has stated the name of this petitioner as one of the assailants. Considering which the learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge petition. 7. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides and on carefully perusing the material on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. At the stage of framing of charge, it is only to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The Trial Court cannot enter into mini trial at this stage to threadbare examine the defence of the accused. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Under the circumstance, the Criminal Revision petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -