(2026:JHHC:3704) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2403 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2403 of 2023 1. Gudan Singh @ Vibhutinath Singh @ Bibhutinath Singh, aged about 49 years, s/o late Murli Singh 2. Mrityunjay Singh @ Sitan Singh @ Mritunjay Kumar Sing, aged about 44 years, s/o Krishna Singh All resident of Village-Mayurhand, P.S.-Mayurhand, P.O.- Mayurhand, Dist.-Chatra .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Adhin Paswan, s/o Sukar Paswan, resident of Village-Mayurhand, P.S.-Mayurhand, P.O.-Mayurhand, Dist.-Chatra …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns 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 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra in connection with G.R. No. 622 of (2026:JHHC:3704) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2403 of 2023 2023 arising out of Mayurhand P.S. Case No. 14 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chatra has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 325 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though in the meanwhile, charge has already been framed against the petitioners and the case is next fixed for recording of evidence of witnesses on 16.04.2026 but the petitioners has not challenged the order by which charge has been framed against the petitioners. Though the FIR was also registered for the offence punishable under the penal provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but cognizance was not taken in respect of the offences under the said Act as charge sheet was not submitted in respect of the said offences. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not know in respect of which offences charge has been framed against the petitioners. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and this case is counter blast to Mayurhand P.S. Case No.13 of 2019 instituted by the co-accused-Shashi Bhushan Singh. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners have not come to Court (2026:JHHC:3704) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2403 of 2023 with clean hands and the petitioners are suppressing the material facts as to for which offence charge has been framed against them. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that it is a settled principle of law that case and counter case can go together; so for that sole reason, the entire criminal proceeding ought not to be quashed. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner held that case and counter case can go together. Now coming to the facts of this case, the petitioners have not come to Court with clean hands. The petitioners have suppressed material facts as to for which offence charge has been framed against the petitioners. It has not been disclosed whether charge for the offence punishable under the penal provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has also been framed. 8. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgement, the sole ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding was only that this is a counter case to the case instituted by the co-accused. The same (2026:JHHC:3704) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2403 of 2023 itself is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th February, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 17/02/2026