Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:8162 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 86 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Das ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nehalika Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : AC to AAG-V For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate --- 04/23.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the concerned respondents to register a First Information Report in respect of an on-line complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent no.5. The allegation, which has been levelled by the petitioner in the on-line complaint, reveals that he was working as a pump operator at BCCL and he was forced by his senior officer i.e. respondent no.5 to engage in domestic jobs and on an objection being raised by the petitioner, the respondent no.5 put him under suspension and had abused him in the name of his caste. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite an on-line complaint made to the police, no action has been taken thereof and no First Information Report has been instituted. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the petitioner was a pump operator at BCCL where the respondent no.5 was the Chief Manager of Water Supply Department and since the petitioner was transferred, he vented his frustration by making complaint to different agencies. It has been submitted by Mr. Das that initially the complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission which was found to be false which was followed up by complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad which again was found false and ultimately, a complaint was made to the department of the respondent no.5 as well, which also did not yield any fruitful result. Mr. Das has further submitted that the respondent no.5 was transferred and he has now superannuated from service, while the transfer of the petitioner has been stayed. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the allegations which have been made by the petitioner, the same seems to be vindictive in nature primarily on account of the transfer of the petitioner by the respondent no.5 and the various agencies to whom the complaint was made by the petitioner had found the allegations to be untrue. On such consideration, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application which accordingly stands disposed of. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 23.03.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 24.03.2026 -2-