Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21156 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-25

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.245 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.86 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer as earlier the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2019. It is next submitted that a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.01.2020 in the said Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2019 was of the view that since the materials against the petitioner in the order impugned has not been mentioned so, it set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Magistrate concerned with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner caused the death of Sikandar Ansari by doing rash and negligent act resulting in his death. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.245 of 2018 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code after finding the allegation against the petitioner to be true. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code after finding the allegation against the petitioner to be true. After the case was remitted to the court of Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Bokaro vide the said order dated 15.01.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro on the basis of perusal of paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4, 20 and 21 of the case-diary in which the statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case and as the witnesses supported the allegations attributed against the petitioner in toto that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner while performing his duty found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 09.03.2026 for supply of police papers but charge has not been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Prakash Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:23396 and submits that in the facts of that case as the allegation of negligence was against the nurse of the hospital but there was no allegation against the petitioner before this Court in that case, who is the doctor in the hospital, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings and submits that in this case also there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Shipra Sarkar & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:37868 wherein in the facts of that case five (5) members of the Expert Enquiry Committee had given a clean chit to all the petitioners by holding that that was not a case of extreme negligence and which report formed part of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2-complainant before this Court as an Annexure, in that case and not such facts of that case in the absence of any material in the record to show any rash or negligent action on the part of the petitioners, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners of that case which arose out of a complaint case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S. K. Pathak vs. The State of Jhakhand & Another reported in 2024:JHHC:22451 and submits that as that case also arose out of a complaint case; in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martin F. D’ Souza vs. Md. Ishfaq reported in (2009) 3 SCC 1 , it was observed by the coordinate bench that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor and in the absence of the same in the fact of that case, the co-ordinate Bench quashed the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the concerned complaint case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The contents of the F.I.R. alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is totally misconceived. It is further submitted that while issuing summons a court has to record its satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the accused but having not done so, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 9. Learned Addl. It is further submitted that while issuing summons a court has to record its satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the accused but having not done so, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 9. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that unlike the cases of Dr. Shipra Sarkar & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) and Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S. K. Pathak vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a complaint case rather it is a police case. It is then submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the F.I.R., materials collected by the police during the investigation of the case and the charge-sheet submitted in the case are considered to be true in the entirety, then the same are sufficient to establish the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code but the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against him is false but certainly the same is a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, is not expected to pass elaborate order. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. 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 it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing summons to the accused based on a police report, Magistrate is not required to record any reason as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:- “ 23 . Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. itself that the accused caused the death of the deceased by his rash and negligent act while conducting the surgical procedure. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. itself that the accused caused the death of the deceased by his rash and negligent act while conducting the surgical procedure. The allegation against the petitioner was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case that has come from the materials collected by the police which has been mentioned in detail in the case-diary; including the statement of the witnesses, as referred to in the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. It is not even the case of the petitioner that if the materials available in the record are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. But the only contention of the petitioner is that allegations made against him are false. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person of the case and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the High Court as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 12. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Now, coming to the facts of the case; since the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against him is false. Certainly, the same can be a defence for the petitioner in the trial of the case but certainly the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, is to be acceded to in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.