( 2026:JHHC:9300 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1724 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1724 of 2025 ------ Kislay Mahto, aged about 47 years, son of Kamal Chandra Mahto, resident of Birsa Nagar, Holding No.247, Zone No.1, Birsa Nagar, TELCO, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Telco, District-East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dipti Mahto, wife of Kislay Mahto, resident of village-Kiriburu Township, Quarter No.E Type-73/1, P.O. & P.S.-Kiriburu, District West Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY I.A. No.3881 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant Cr.M.P. Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1724 of 2025 By the Court:- Heard the parties. ( 2026:JHHC:9300 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1724 of 2025 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with several prayers, but at the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner abandons all other prayers and confines his prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Kiriburu P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.561 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa based on the charge sheet submitted by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner but has not taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakhan Lal Sahu & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:31021 submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- ( 2026:JHHC:9300 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1724 of 2025 “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid down the law that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R. on which investigation had been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or ( 2026:JHHC:9300 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1724 of 2025 subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing the charge and submits that as undisputedly the charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, hence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has committed a grave illegality by subtracting the Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as mentioned in the charge sheet while taking cognizance by not taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, it is submitted that the said order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P, but fairly submits that charge sheet has been submitted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the cognizance of the offences has only been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but cognizance has not been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; for which offence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa ought to have taken cognizance. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. ( 2026:JHHC:9300 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1724 of 2025 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has committed a grave illegality by subtracting the Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while taking cognizance based on the charge sheet submitted by the police; even though undisputedly the police has also submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Kiriburu P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.561 of 2015, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Kiriburu P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.561 of 2015, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. The matter is remitted to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of March, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 09/04/2026