(2025:JHHC:12120) 1 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.778 of 2025 ------ 1. Usha Bajaj, age – 63 Years, W/o Late Pramod Kumar Bajaj 2. Rachit Bajaj, age – 39 Years, S/o Late Pramod Kumar Bajaj Both R/o C-2/3, Umesh Enclave, Main Road, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. – Adityapur, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate Mr. Anadi Brahma, Advocate Ms. Neha Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P. ------ 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 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.65 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella has framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; on the ground that the charge was framed on the same day when the police papers were supplied, by which the petitioners were deprived of their rights, to receive deficient police paper and to prefer discharge application. (2025:JHHC:12120) 2 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 3. This case is having a chequered history. The petitioners are the accused persons of S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.65 of 2016. Vide order dated 30.11.2023, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.150 of 2024 claiming that without the compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Serikella has framed the charges against them. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, allowed the Criminal Revision on the ground that the mandatory requirement of compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., having not been done by framing of the charge and set aside the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. Case No.41 of 2020 and remitted the matter to the court concerned to decide framing of the charge afresh; after conveyance of police papers. The said order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.150 of 2024 was received by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella on 07.10.2024. The case was next fixed to 14.11.2024 for compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. On 14.11.2024, the petitioner No.2 was physically present before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella and the petitioner No.1 was represented by her lawyer. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, the case was fixed to 20.12.2024 for hearing on the charge. On 20.12.2024 both the petitioners were present before the trial court. The lawyers of the petitioners received the police paper on behalf of the petitioners and he made an endorsement in the remarks column of the order-sheet of the concerned case, that he has received the police papers on behalf of both the accused persons, without expressing anything to show, that they want time to file any discharge petition or there is anything (2025:JHHC:12120) 3 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 lacking in the police papers supplied to the petitioners in compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Perusal of the record reveals that on 20.12.2024 both the learned defence counsel i.e. the counsel of the petitioners herein and the learned Additional P.P. were present for hearing on the point of charge. The learned Additional P.P. opened the case by describing the charges to be framed against the accused persons. The learned defence counsel i.e. the counsel for the petitioners opposed the submissions on behalf of the prosecution. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella was of the opinion that there was ample material for the purpose of framing of charge, under Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and framed the charges. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was next fixed to 04.01.2025 however the petitioners felt it not proper to file the copy of the order-sheet dated 04.01.2025 but have filed the order-sheet dated 01.02.2025. On 01.02.2025, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that in the order dated 20.12.2024, the words ‘sample’ in the fourth line of the second paragraph be replaced with ‘ample’ and further in the sixth line of the second paragraph the words ‘does not oppose’ be replaced with ‘opposes’ as the same has happened because of clerical error. The learned trial court corrected the said inadvertent clerical errors and rectified the order dated 20.12.2024, to the aforesaid extent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners earlier preferred a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated 25.08.2024 and after perusal of the rejection order of (2025:JHHC:12120) 4 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 their discharge application; as the petitioners could know that there is paragraphs-97 and 98 in the supplementary case-diary, a copy of which was never supplied to them, so the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.150 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Raj Ballabh Prasad @ Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4384 and submits that therein it was observed that all the documents and materials, which the prosecution seeks to rely upon, must be furnished to the accused and after giving adequate and effective opportunity to the accused; the hearing on charge shall take place. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the role of the investigating agency to be performed, while further investigation of the case takes place and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that for submitting a supplementary report after further investigation of the case, fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and as in this case also, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners without any fresh oral and documentary evidence, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that there is a difference between the submission of a supplementary (2025:JHHC:12120) 5 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 charge-sheet without any further investigation, after completing the unfinished investigation against some of the accused persons and submission of a supplementary report, after further investigation of the case which is done as per Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that this is not a case where any further investigation, in terms of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. or otherwise was directed by any court of law. Hence, the ratio of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case. It is next submitted that indisputably the petitioners had earlier filed a petition for discharge, which has already been rejected and the said order is not under challenge and has attained finality. It is further submitted that though the petitioners have used the words “deficient police paper” in the prayer portion of this Cr.M.P. but in the body of the petition nowhere has it categorically been mentioned as to what was deficient, in the police paper supplied to the petitioners nor any such grievance was ever raised by the petitioners before the trial court and in the absence of any averment that anything was deficient in the police paper supplied to the petitioners, through their counsel on 20.12.2024, the prayer made by the petitioners herein is a hollow one and being without any merit, has been made for the sole purpose of dragging the litigation, to evade facing the trial as far as possible. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, were admittedly, well-aware about the supplementary case-diary and the contents of paragraphs-97 and 98 thereof (2025:JHHC:12120) 6 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 from the rejection order of their discharge application. The undisputed fact remains that they were supplied the police papers on 20.12.2024; after the earlier order framing charge was set aside by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. There is no material in the record, as to what made the petitioners not to intimate the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, that they have not been supplied the entire police paper, in compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. As already indicate above; though on 01.02.2025 the petitioners filed a petition in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella pointing out some clerical error in the order dated 20.12.2024 and the same was also allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella but no explanation is forthcoming from the petitioners, that if at all the petitioners were not supplied the entire police papers, what made them not to agitate the same before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella by intimating the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella that they have not been supplied the entire police papers or that there is anything deficient in the police papers supplied to them under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. 9. As already indicated above, the petitioners have already filed a petition to discharge them from the case; which was rejected on merit and having not been challenged, the same has attained finality. In this Cr.M.P. also, the petitioners have not raised any grievance against the said petition. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the claim of the petitioners that they have not been not given any opportunity to file any petition for discharge, is without any merit; more so, as they never made any prayer for time to enable them to file any further discharge petition, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, if they at all wanted (2025:JHHC:12120) 7 Cr. M.P. No.778 of 2025 to file any petition for discharge; rather they willingly participated in the hearing of framing of the charge without any demur; but once the charge was framed and it went against the petitioners, they have come up with this petition knowing pretty well that the order rejecting their petition for discharge has already attained finality. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Cr.M.P. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of April, 2025 AFR/ Animesh