(2026:JHHC:20917) 1 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.408 of 2021 ------ 1. Jai Bhagwan Yadav @ Bablu Yadav, aged about 43 years, S/O Banshidhar Gope, resident of-18 A, Chhotkakana, Near Bajrang Bali Temple, P.O.- Barkakana, P.S.- Patratu, Dist- Ramgarh 2. Nepal Yadav, aged 52 years, S/O Prayag Gope, resident of Katliya Beda, Near Railway Station, P.O. & P.S.- Barkakana, District- Ramgarh … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deepak Kisku, S/o Sonaram Kisku, resident of village- Chiratungari, P.O.- Ghatotand, P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ------ 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.831 of 2021 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh based on the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the petitioners inter alia for having (2026:JHHC:20917) 2 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the members of an unlawful assembly caused hurt to the informant and the workers of his company at the Railway siding and in order to have hold over the Railway siding and the further allegation is that the petitioners intentionally insulted the informant and his workers provoking them to commit breach of peace and to commit other offences also. 4. Basing upon the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegations inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. Basing upon the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prem Nath Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:1458 (Cr.M.P. No.2982 of 2022) and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2023) SC Online SC 668 wherein in the facts of that case where the nature of hurt suffered by the complainant in the process was neither reflected from the first F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2026:JHHC:20917) 3 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 the facts of that case went on to hold that the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that as in this case, the nature of hurt sustained by each of the workers of the informant is not specifically mentioned, so, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 6. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the cognizance order suffers from gross illegality. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra) as in the F.I.R. itself of this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners; who are named in the F.I.R. that they were members of unlawful assembly and about 100-150 persons of them caused hurt to the workers of the informant by assaulting them, causing various injuries to the workers of the informant and even attempt was made to kill the informant and his workers and when the assailants were between 100-150 and the victims were also several in number, it is neither desirable nor essential that all the injuries sustained by each of such persons has to be specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. itself and for non- mentioning of the same, the F.I.R. is to be quashed; because it is humanly not possible to enumerate each of the injuries sustained in such a case (2026:JHHC:20917) 4 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 involving more than 100 assailants and several victims. It is further submitted that the act of the petitioners undoubtedly constitutes the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code; as the allegations made against the petitioners go to show that they intentionally insulted the informant and his workers provoking them to cause breach of peace and to commit other offences. 8. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State further relies upon the judgment 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:- “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) (2026:JHHC:20917) 5 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 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 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 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. Hence, it is submitted that since both the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioners if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety; therefore, there is no rhyme or reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners being members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly caused hurt to the several workers of the informant causing them several injuries. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of this case are different from the facts of the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra); as unlike in that case, in this case there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners who are (2026:JHHC:20917) 6 Cr. M.P. No.408 of 2021 named in the F.I.R. of being members of an unlawful assembly, caused hurt to the workers of the informant and intentionally insulted them provoking them to commit breach of peace and other offences. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made by the petitioners in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of July, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 17/07/2026