W.P. (Cr.) No.168 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 168 of 2024 Jyoti Kumar Choubey, aged about 34 years, son of Rameshwar Choubey, resident of Village-Amrud Bagan, Ratu Road, P.O., P.S.-Sukhdev Nagar & Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, having his office at Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Superintendent of Police, Government of Jharkhand, having his office at Kutcheary, P.O.-Sadar, P.S.-G.P.O., Ranchi 4. The Officer-in-charge, having his office Pandra O.P., P.O.- Sukhdev Nagar, P.S.-Hehal, Ranchi …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Mr. K. Hari, Advocate : Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG IA : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG IA ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the FIR of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 559 of 2023 W.P. (Cr.) No.168 of 2024 2 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons caused grievous hurt to Jitu and also caused hurt to the informant and others and committed theft of gold chain and also caused mischief by breaking the mobile phone and criminally intimidated as well as intentionally insulted the informant and others to provoke them to cause breach of peace. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the petitioner was beaten by informant and his friends as the informant did not pay the extortion money to Prakash Jha and the petitioner was hospitalized. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay of two days in lodging of the FIR. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in connivance with the police, the informant has got this case registered. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the contents of the FIR if considered to be true in its entirety certainly, the same makes out several cognizable offences against the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that it is a settled principle of law that once a cognizable offence is reported to police, the police have to register the FIR and since, undisputedly, the contents of the FIR make out several cognizable W.P. (Cr.) No.168 of 2024 3 offences, no illegality has been committed by the respondent no.4 in registration of the FIR. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that investigation of the case is going on; so at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed; on the ground that the same is a malicious one, as whether or not a proceeding is a malicious one can only be determined, after the full-dress trial of the case concerned. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. 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 contents of the FIR if considered to be true make out cognizable offences. 7. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh. Etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under:- “11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.” (Emphasis supplied) W.P. (Cr.) No.168 of 2024 4 that whether or not a criminal proceeding was malicious or not is not required to be evaluated at the stage of issuing of summons and the same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. 8. Keeping in view the undisputed fact of the case and the settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the First Information Report of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 559 of 2023 or the connected First Information Report. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th March, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-