( 2026:JHHC:24794 ) Cr.M.P. No.2552 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2552 of 2026 Rahul Choudhary, aged about 18 years, son of Santosh Choudhary, resident of Village –Barawan Tola, Lakadrahi, P.S. –Chainpur, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Saraswat, Advocate : Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Danda P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026 whereby and where under the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner in an address other than his address mentioned in the F.I.R., in order dated 18.06.2026 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and the proclamation requiring the appearance issued, the copy of which has been kept in annexure-4. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Barawan, Tola –Lakadrahi, P.S. – ( 2026:JHHC:24794 ) Cr.M.P. No.2552 of 2026 2 Chainpur, Palamau. It is next submitted that vide order dated 18.06.2026, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner in the said address but vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2026, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, mentioning his address as Barawn, Tola – Lakadahi, P.S. –Danda, District –Garhwa but in the proclamation issued in terms of the said order dated 20.07.2026 again the address instead of being mentioned as P.S. –Danda, District – Garhwa, it has been mentioned as P.S. –Chainpur, District –Palamau while the name of the village and tola remains the same. Hence, it is submitted that in the absence of any plausible reason, as to why to differ the address of the petitioner than the address mentioned in the First Information Report, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submits that the address of the petitioner may be differing because of printing error but there being no other illegality in the impugned order, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is a resident of P.S. –Chainpur, District –Palamau, as has been mentioned in the F.I.R., the order dated 18.06.2026 and even the proclamation which has been issued in compliance of the order dated 20.07.2026, but in the order dated 20.07.2026, without any rhyme or reason, the police station and district of the petitioner has erroneously been mentioned as P.S. –Danda and District –Garhwa. ( 2026:JHHC:24794 ) Cr.M.P. No.2552 of 2026 3 6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Danda P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026 is not in accordance with law. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 7. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th August, 2026 AFR/Sonu/- Uploaded on 25.08.2026