Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 844 of 2022 1. Praveen @Prabin Kumar Lala, aged about 50 years, Son of Sachidanand Prasad resident of near Shiv Mandir Katras, Katras Bazar, Lala Toli Nichlipur. P.O. & P.S.- Katras, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 2. Madan Mohan Singh, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Bodhan Singh, resident of Rangatand Railway Colony Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. (Jharkhand). ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .….. Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P. --------- Order No. 04/Dated: 06th January, 2025 I.A. No. 13610 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in prayer portion and relevant paragraph of main application and wants to challenge the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 103 of 2020, whereby the charge framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 414 of the I,P.c. and 25(1B) (a)/26(1)/35 of the Arms Act. Page | 2 2. Since, the charge framing is a continuation proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 103 of 2020. Hence, this interlocutory application is allowed and order dated 01.04.2024 by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner will be part of the prayer of the main application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in the main petition in the course of the day. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13610 of 2024 is allowed. Cr. M.P. No. 844 of 2022 1. Heard both the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding and order dated 01.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 216 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 103 of 2020, pursuant to which charge framed under Sections 414 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1B) (a)/26(1),35 of Arms Act. 3. It is submitted that two witnesses have been examined in this case and they have clearly stated that they have put a thumb impression on the paper, but they do not have any idea, on which paper they have given a thumb impression. Hence, the necessary ingredients for establishing offence under these penal provisions are clearly absent. Page | 3 4. It appears that trial has commenced and two witnesses have also been examined. I do not find any reason to intervene in the cognizance order or order for charge framing. 5. Hence, this petition has no merits and accordingly, dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/