[ 2026:JHHC:19475] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 Suresh Prasad, aged about 54 years, S/o Ramdeni Saw, R/o village- Serendag, P.O. and P.S.- Herhanj , Dist.- Latehar ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 8436 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with twin prayers, but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the prayer of quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Latehar in connection with Herhanj P.S. case no. 30 of 2024 and confines his prayer only to quash and set aside the portion of the order dated 07.01.2025 whereby and where under, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act [ 2026:JHHC:19475] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 cases, Latehar has observed that from the perusal of the case diary, it transpires that prima facie case under Section 75 of BNS and Section 18 of the POCSO Act is also made out against the petitioner, apart from the offences in respect of which supplementary charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. 3. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the case is based on police report and upon the investigation of the case, the police found only the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, so the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Latehar at the time of the passing order of the said supplementary chargesheet, ought not have observed in the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 in that prima facie case, for the offences punishable under Section 75 of BNS and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, is also made out against the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 75 of BNS and Section 18 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner as well, hence it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through 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 State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659, para 15 of which reads as under :- “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 [ 2026:JHHC:19475] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 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 chargesheet.” (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 FIR on which investigation had been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance for submission of the charge-sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and learned Magistrate, in a case which is based on Police Report cannot add or subtract section at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the learned trial court at the time of framing of charge. 6. 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for having committed the offence only under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS and not for Section 75 of BNS and Section 18 of the POCSO Act. 7. Under such circumstances and in view of the settled principle of law, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Latehar ought not have observed that prima facie case is found against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 75 of BNS and Section 18 of POCSO Act also. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order, so far as it relates to the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, [ 2026:JHHC:19475] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 669 of 2026 Latehar in connection with Herhanj P.S. case no. 30 of 2024, so far as it relates to the observation that the prima facie case is made out in respect of the Section 75 of BNS and Section 18 of POCSO Act, is quashed and set aside. 8. learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Latehar is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, 2nd July, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 14.07.2026