[2026:JHHC:3755] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 37 of 2022 1. Anuj Kumar Trivedi @ Anuj Kumar, aged about 42 years. 2. Prabhakar Trivedi @ Prabhakar Kumar Triwedi, aged about 36 years 3. Prem Prakash Trivedi, aged about 29 years, All S/o Late Srikant Triwedi, R/o PHED Colony, Kanke, P.O. and P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Amit Kumar, S/o Jaykant Pathak, R/o Furhura Toli, P.O. and P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate. : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate. : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. ------ 27/ 11.02.2026 This matter has been assigned by Hon’ble the Chief Justice to this Court, that’s is how, this petition has been listed before this Bench. 2. Heard learned counsel and learned amicus curiae for the petitioner, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2019, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 4. The complaint case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2, alleging therein that on 20.02.2019, at about 09.00 A.M., the informant was going to office, the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, signal the informant near Sukuhutu, Kanke Ring Road, over bridge. When the informant stopped the motorcycle all the accused persons forcibly pulled out the informant [2026:JHHC:3755] -2- and started assaulting him. In course of assault, the informant started shouting for help, on listening to the hue and cry of the informant, Dharmshila Devi, Karan Kumar, Jaykant Pathak and few person were came to save the informant. The petitioners started fleeing away and during course of running snatched the bag of O.P. No. 2 which was containing Rs 50,000/- and important documents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case has been solemnly affirmed and the place of occurrence was said to be the Ring Road, Kanke, Ranchi and it has been stated that when the O.P. No. 2 was going to his duty through the said Ring Road all along and at that place family members of the O.P. No. 2 reached and rescued the O.P. No. 2. He next submits that the O.P. No. 2 is the brother-in-law of all these petitioners. He also submits that the sister of the petitioners namely Nira Kumari has lodged an FIR, being Kanke P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against O.P. No. 2 and his family members and thereafter as a retaliation, several cases have been lodged against these petitioners by the O.P. No. 2 and his family members. He then submits that several complaint cases / police cases have been lodged against the petitioners and their family members and details of which are produced hereinbelow:- “1. Sadar P.S. Case No. 278 of 2019 2. Sadar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2020 3. Doranda P.S. Case No. 279 of 2019 4. Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2019 (present case) 5. Complaint Case No. 106 of 2020 6. Complaint Case No. 31 of 2020 7. Complaint Case No. 2567 of 2021 (Kanke P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021) [2026:JHHC:3755] -3- 8. Complaint Case No. 2181 of 2022 9. Kanke P.S. Case No. 160 of 2022 10. Complaint Case no. 1251 of 2021 11. Complaint Case no. 8411 of 2023” 6. In these backgrounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that frivolous cases have been filed against the petitioners and further the occurrence of the present complaint has taken place on 20.02.2019, wherein the complaint case has been filed on 27.03.2019. On these grounds he submits that the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the matter is arising out of a complaint case. She next submits that the malicious prosecution can only be tested after the trial. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 has also opposed the prayer and submits that the occurrence took place in view of that the complaint case has been filed, as the FIR has not been registered by the concerned police station. He next submits that the false case has been lodged by the sister of these petitioners under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, in which, the O.P. No. 2 side have been acquitted. He also submits that the petitioners are unnecessarily harassing the O.P. No. 2 and his family members. 9. In view of the above, it appears that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 07.09.2019 and the said order is said to be a composite order and the learned court has only stated that he has looked into the solemn affirmation and inquiry witness and the statements and thereafter has taken cognizance. 10. It is well settled principle of law that when the learned court [2026:JHHC:3755] -4- is taking cognizance, the judicial mind applicability is one of the necessity and that is required to be stated in the order itself. There is no reason given as to how the prima facie case in the aforesaid background is made out and reference in this regard is made to the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, where in paras- 51, 52 and 53, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of [2026:JHHC:3755] -5- such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons.” 11. In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1548 of 2019, pending in the same court, is hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance, in accordance with law after examining the records. 12. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-11.02.2026 Amitesh/-