[2026:JHHC:14797 ] 1 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.143 of 2025 ------ 1. Jasinta Minz, aged about 69 years, W/o Late Khristopher Minz. 2. Samir Minz, aged about… yrs. S/o Late Khrishtopher Minz. 3. Ema Bara, aged about 38 yrs, W/o Manoj Xess 4. Josima Xaxa, aged about 42 years, W/o Bhushan Bara. 5. Bhushan Bara, aged about 51 yrs, S/o Late Peter Bara. All R/o Village Sogra, Pethiyar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Pakartanr, Dist. Simdega … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rashmi Sanchita Ekka, aged about 37 yrs, D/o Sushil Ekka, R/o Village 100, Deogaon, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gumla … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate. Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. ------ 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of MP MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 which has been registered consequent upon the Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Simdega being transferred to the Court of MP/MLA being the Special Judicial [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 2 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, on the ground that a subsequent case being Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 10 of 2021, got quashed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 521 of 2023. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 16.08.2024 passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge and additionally framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Prayer has also been made to quash the order of framing of additional charge on 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi and yet another prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in C.P. Case No. 68 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the said Court found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. The last prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in complaint case no. 68 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the said court has explained the substance of accusation to all the 05 accused persons of that case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 herein as complainant filed complaint case no. 68 of 2018 alleging therein that the complainant is a teacher in St. Ignatius High School, Gumla. Soni Minz is another teacher in that school. Soni Minz solemnized marriage with Anup Bharti in October, 2014 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Soni and Anup remained as husband and wife. Soni intimated about her marriage to the complainant-opposite party no.2 and [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 3 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 requested her to intimate the fact of her marriage with Anup to her family members. The complainant on 02.01.2018 started with her mother and one Shashi Bhushan Bakhla to the village of Soni Minz. The petitioner no.5 herein who is the accused no. 3 of that complaint case is the maternal uncle of Soni Minz and is also the Mukhiya of the village. The complainant first stopped her vehicle and went to the court yard of the petitioner no.5 Bhusan Bara and disclosed that she is the friend of Soni Minz. The complainant disclosed to Bhushan Bara (the petitioner no.5 herein) that Soni Minz has requested the complainant of that case to intimate the marriage of Soni Minz with Anup Bharti to the family members of Soni Minz; hence, the complainant has come to their village. The petitioner no.5 herein, namely Bhushan Bara, at this become enraged and abused the complainant by telling that she being a member of Scheduled Tribe is siding with a Hindu. Bhushan Bara called his wife, sister and told them to disrobe the complainant and to put a garland of chappal and to take her to the police station by beating her. Bhushan Bara closed his main gate of his court yard. At this, the complainant pleaded that since the Bhushan Bara is the Mukhiya, he should talk to Soni Minz, but at this Bhushan Bara abused the complainant by using filthy language and manhandled Bhushan Bakhla who was also accompanying the complainant and attempted to beat them by lifting the chair. The accused persons Joshima Xaxa (petitioner no.4 herein) Ema Bara (petitioner no.3 herein) caught hold of the hand of the complainant and disrobed her. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 also came there and together they abused the complainant as well as Shashi Bhushan Bakhla and [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 4 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 assaulted them and insulted them by telling that they are ‘Dalal’ of the girls. In the meanwhile, police arrived there and took the complainant and the persons accompanying her to Simdega Mahila police station. Nothing was asked by the police from the complainant and the persons accompanying her but they were then taken to Pakhratanr police station and the complainant was made to execute a bond and after that they were released. The complainant became terrorised by acts of the accused persons of the case and become so worried the she became ill and only after medication, she could be fit to file the complaint. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M. Simdega found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. and passed the summoning order. The petitioners herein appeared before the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Simdega and vide order dated 09.07.2018 passed in the said complaint case no.68 of 2018 the learned S.D.J.M. Simdega explained the substance of accusation of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. to the accused persons of the case; to which the accused persons of case, who are the petitioners in this case pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried and trial begun. 5. The complainant examined the witnesses and on earlier occasion also the petitioners moved this court vide Cr. M.P. No. 03 of 2024 challenging the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi rejected the prayer of the [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 5 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 accused persons of the case to examine the investigating Officer of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 as defence witnesses. 6. This Court vide order dated 17.01.2024 allowed the said prayer of the petitioners herein who is the accused persons of the said case to examine Mirju Hembrom- the investigating Officer of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019, as a defence witnesses. Thereafter, in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 which has been renumbered as MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021; a petition was filed by the complainant for alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was registered as M.C.A. No. 3404 of 2024, the learned Special J.M.F.C., Ranchi considered the fact that C.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Bakhla has specifically stated that the accused persons had said to disrobe the complainant and pulled her scarf (dupatta). The same was also corroborated by C.W.2 Anna Ekka beside the complainant herself who was examined as C.W.3. 7. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate considered the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sajjan Kumar versus C.B.I. (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein it has been held that at the time of charge it is sufficient if the court is able to form a presumption regarding existence of ingredients constituting the offence found upon the material placed before it and at this stage it is not necessary for the Court to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or the evidentiary value of the materials placed before it. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 6 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 of Anant Prakash versus State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105 wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there was no fault on the part of the court in entertaining the application filed by the informant for alteration of the charge. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate then relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Onkar Nath Mishra versus State (2008) 2 SCC 561 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that at the stage of charge, the court is only required to take the materials and documents on the record at their face value as from the materials in the record. As it appeared to the learned Special Judicial Magistrate that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and the materials have a nexus with the alleged offence; accordingly, he allowed the M.C.A. No. 3404 of 2024 and ordered for putting up the record on 09.09.2024 for framing of altered charge and explanation of altered charge to the accused persons. On 09.01.2026 attendance was filed by the petitioners herein before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi, the charges were altered and Section 354 of the I.P.C. was added. On 16.08.2024 considering the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 143 of 2025 whereby the stay order has been vacated; charges under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C.; the substance of accusationof which offences were earlier explained to the accused persons of the said case, were again explained with a fresh charge of Section 354 of the I.P.C. and the same were explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in respect of the fresh charges. The learned [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 7 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 Special Judicial Magistrate then fixed the record to 02.02.2026 for evidence. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is the 5th journey of the petitioner to this court, the earlier ones have been mentioned in para 2 of this Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that for the self- same occurrence opposite party no.2, lodged an F.I.R. on 05.03.2019 which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 and upon the same also being transferred to the Court of MP/MLA said case has been renumbered as MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021. It is then submitted that police after investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons and the learned trial court took cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge sheet was submitted by police in that case. The prayer of the petitioners for discharged was rejected by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. The accused persons of the case preferred criminal revision No. 521 of 2023. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 04.09.2023 in the said criminal revision No. 521 of 2023 allowed the criminal revision and quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021. 9. It is next submitted that in view of the judgement of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 521 of 2023 nothing remained in the instant complaint case and the continuation of the complaint case in gross violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy as enunciated under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. will amount to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the order dated 16.08.2024 by [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 8 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 which the charge was altered by adding the charge under Section 354 of the I.P.C. has given a fresh cause of action to the petitioners. The petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 697 of 2024 but under wrong nomenclature Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 697 of 2024 was filed. Hence, the petitioners withdrew the same with a liberty to file fresh application. 10. It is then submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C. in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 to be amalgamated with MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021, but the prayer of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner filed criminal revision no. 468 of 2023 by challenging the order dated 31.03.2023, but before the matter could be finally decided and petitioners got discharged in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no. 19 of 2019. Hence, the criminal revision was dismissed being infructuous. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence of complaint case no. 68 of 2018 and Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 are both on 02.01.2018. It is next submitted that Soni Minz whose statement was recorded by the investigating Officer of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 apparently under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. did not support the case of the complainant. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan versus State of Kerela reported in (2022) INSC 1262; it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the facts of the case that was before the Supreme Court of India are the same as allegation of offences in the previous three cases therefore, as per the mandate under Section 300(2) of the Code of [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 9 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 Criminal Procedure, it was held that the consent of the State Government is necessary for such prosecution and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case went on to hold that the initiation of the subsequent proceedings are not in accordance with law and the proceedings were quashed in that case. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Manikandan versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Others in Criminal Appeal No. 5478 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024 in para 31 of which as reported in Manu S.C. 1368 of 2024; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of the three conditions laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan (Supra) and as in the facts of the case, as a previous proceedings did take place wherein the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death and all the three conditions were fulfilled so, in the facts of that case came to the conclusion that the right enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India stands violated and all process being subsequent to the direction of the High Court were quashed and set aside and the appellant were acquitted of all charges. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para-17 of this Cr.M.P. the petitioner has quoted para 7 of the judgment passed by a Co-Ordinate Bench in criminal revision no. 521 of 2023 and therein the Co-Ordinate Bench has dealt with lucidly, the reasons why it quashed the charge. It is further submitted that the charge framed in the said Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 10 of 2021 [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 10 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 also involved offences punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. therefore the addition of the said charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. in this present case by way of alteration of charge has prejudiced the petitioners and that is the reason why the petitioners have come up with this petition with the prayer as prayed for made in this Cr.M.P. 13. It is next submitted that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 has gravely prejudiced the case of the defence of the petitioner as the defence witnesses have been examined in complaint case no. 68 of 2018 corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021. So, relegating the petitioners once again to the rigmarole of another criminal proceeding arising out of the same set of facts and allegations is in gross violation of Article 20(2) read with Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 14. The learned G.A.-III, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. It is submitted by learned G.A.- III that the offences involved in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 are not entirely same with that of the offences involved in the Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 corresponding to MP/MLA P.S. Case No.05 of 2021 and the same submission of the State is adopted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also and both of them submits that since the facts of both the cases are different, hence there is no justifiable reason to quash the earlier instituted complaint case; for any subsequent event [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 11 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 because principle of law as has been reiterated even in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan (Supra) is that for jeopardy comes into play when there is previous proceeding in a court of law or judicial tribunal and subsequent proceedings for the same facts are instituted, in that case, the subsequent proceedings is to be quashed and certainly not the priorly instituted proceeding. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further defends the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Simdega in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 whereby the summoning order and they order by which the substance of accusation has been explained and also defends the order by which the alteration of charge by adding the offences punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. has been passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Court and submits that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the prayer of the petitioner regarding quashing the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 as well as the order dated 09.07.2018 in the said complaint case no.68 of 2018 by the S.D.J.M., Simdega by which it has explained the substance of accusation under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 342 of the I.P.C. is concerned; the undisputed facts remain that earlier also in the same-same case, the petitioner no.5 filed a Cr.M.P. No. 03 of 2024. At that time, he did not raise any objection regarding the same. The undisputed fact also remains that in the said complaint case no. 68 of 2018 corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021, witnesses have been examined, the statement under [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 12 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded and even defence witnesses have already been examined. The perusal of the record reveals that the materials in the record is sufficient to hold prima facie, the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, while discussing the brief facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that at this belated stage, there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 05.02.2018 and 09.07.2018 passed by the S.D.J.M., Simdega in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. ; As at this belated stage it requires appreciation of the evidence that the already come on record, which is prohibited in exercise of the power by the High Court under section 528 of the B.N.S.S.. Accordingly, the said two prayers being without any merits are dismissed. 16. So far as the order dated 16.08.2024 passed in the MP/MLA case no. 05 of 2021 and the framing of additional charge dated 09.01.2026 both passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 by learned Special JMFC, Ranchi are concerned; the same relates to alteration of the charge by addition of the offences punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasanbhai Vallibhai Qureshi versus State of Gujarat & Others (2004) 5 SCC 347 that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that any Court may alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever, such alteration or addition is made, the same is to be read out and informed to the accused. [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 13 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 In the said case, it was also held that if addition or alteration of charge is necessary, the Court is free to do so and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate. 17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remain that in their deposition in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 the C.W.1 has specifically stated that the accused disrobed the complainant and pulled her scarf (Dupatta). The same was corroborated by C.W.2 and C.W.3 being the complainant herself. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the materials in the record, the learned Special JMFC, MP/MLA, Ranchi having exercise the power vested upon it under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law; this Court do not find any justifiable reason either to quash the said order dated 16.08.2024 or the order dated 09.01.2026, in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the said two orders is dismissed. 18. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 is concerned, the only ground agitated by the petitioner is that subsequently, the opposite party no.2/complainant of complaint case no. 68 of 2018 files Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2019 in which the witness Soni Minz does not support the case of the prosecution in her statement apparently recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the Co- Ordinate Bench in criminal revision no. 521 of 2023 vide order dated 04.09.2023 has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of the subsequently instituted Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2019, while [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 14 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 considering the order of the trial court by which the trial court rejected the petition for discharge of the accused persons of the case. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as this complaint case no. 68 of 2018 is concerned, Soni Minz was not an eye-witness to the occurrence of the facts of this case. This case was a priorly instituted case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan (Supra) also in paragraph-31 which reads as under: - “ 31. In our considered view, the position of law that the principle applies is unquestionable. The three conditions laid down in T.P.Gopalakrishnan (supra) are: Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been (2011) 1 SCC 284 (2012) 7 SCC 621 prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts., the settle principle of law is that if there is a previous proceeding before the court of law or judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction, then institution of the subsequent proceedings in respect of the same offences is in gross violation of right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now the undisputed facts remain in this case is to not to quash the subsequent case, but to quash the earlier proceedings which is the complaint case only because in a subsequent police case, the accused persons has been discharged. (Emphasis supplied) the institution of the subsequent proceedings in respect of the same offences is in gross violation of right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not the earlier proceeding, as is the case here in this case. [2026:JHHC:14797 ] 15 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025 Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the contention of the petitioner of double jeopardy do not fulfil the three conditions laid down in the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan (supra) relied upon by the petitioners themselves. Further, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the offence involved in the Complaint Case No.68 of 2018 is not entirely the same as the offence involved in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019. Moreover, undisputedly this is the earlier case not the later case. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceedings of a priorly instituted case, on the ground that in a subsequent case, the accused persons have been discharged. Therefore, this Court do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 20. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. 21. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., pending I.A. if any stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of May, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on -21/05/2026