[2026:JHHC:21683] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2147 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2147 of 2026 ------ 1. Babita Devi, aged about 45 years, Wife of Raghu Ram 2. Boby Kumar @ Chavi Kumar Das aged about 24 years, Son of Raghu Ram 3. Aanchal Kumari @ Anchal Devi, aged about 26 Years Daughter of Raghu Ram. 4. Rajan Kumar Das @ Rajan Kumar @ Green Kumar Das, aged about 28 years, Son of Raghu Ram. All are resident of Kumhartoli, Parnala, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.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 First Information Report dated 17.10.2021 as well as the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 393 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. [2026:JHHC:21683] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2147 of 2026 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, caused grievous hurt to the informant by throwing bricks and stones from the rooftop pointing at the informant so rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of the informant and others. There is also allegation against the petitioners of criminally intimidating the informant and others and also intentionally insulting the informant and others to provoke them to commit breach of peace or to commit any other offence. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 393 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on. It is then submitted that charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act in connection with G(F) Case No. 78 of 2011; as mentioned in para-23 of this criminal miscellaneous petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the petition is vague and [2026:JHHC:21683] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2147 of 2026 vexatious one. It is next submitted that the petitioners have not dared to state on oath that the offences in respect of which, the case has been instituted is not made out against the petitioners because the petitioners themselves know that they have committed the said offences. It is next submitted that cunningly the petitioner has pleaded that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, knowing pretty well that Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act has got nothing to do with this case. It is further submitted that merely because the investigation of the case is going on for some time, the petitioners at best could have moved the appropriate forum for expediting the investigation but the same is certainly not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding; when undisputedly, the offences in respect of which the First Information Report has been registered, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the institution of the prosecution and not the date on which the Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarah [2026:JHHC:21683] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2147 of 2026 Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62. 8. The undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offences in respect of which the First Information Report has been registered, is made out against the petitioners. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that merely because there is a delay in investigation of the case, is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings. Hence, this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of July, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 23/07/2026