( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 1 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 ------ Ajay Prasad, aged about 36 years, son of Late Hiraman Sao, Resident of Village & P.O.-Rasoiya Dhamna, P.S.-Barhi, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, At-Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Department, Government of Jharkhand, At Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, At Police Head Quarter at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, At & P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 7. The Officer in Charge, Laushinghana Police Station, Laushinghana, P.O. & P.S.-Laushinghana, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 8. Nirmal Kumar Sahu, son of Devcharan Sahu, the then I.O. of the case Laushinghana Police Case No.168/2019, At & P.O. & P.S.- Laushinghana, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, Resident of Pagar, P.O. & P.S.-Simari, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. 9. Rupa Kumari, Daughter of Umesh Sao, Resident of Village- Kundru Kala, P.O. Kundru Kala, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 10. Champa Devi, wife of Umesh Sao, Resident of Village-Kundru Kala, P.O. Kundru Kala, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 11. Basudeo Sao, son of Somar Sao, Resident of Village-Barisakhi, P.O. & P.S.-Gidhaur, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. 12. Ganesh Sao, son of Late Bhekhla Sao @ Bhekho Soa, Resident of ( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 Village-Mahuabhag, P.O. & P.S.-Chauparan, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the OPs : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to direct the Respondents, especially the Respondent No.7 to lodge an FIR against the Respondent No.8 to 12 for the offences punishable under Section 217, 229 & 248 of the B.N.S., 2023 as because the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.168 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No.300 of 2021 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh, in which case vide judgement dated 24.04.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh has acquitted the petitioner and a further prayer has also been made to direct the Respondents to make payment of Rs.2 Crores as compensation to the petitioner on account of harassment and incarceration during the said trial in that false case, resulting in ruining of his career as well as social status due to act of the Respondent No.8 to 12. ( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 3. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.9, 10 & 12 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that undisputedly the offences punishable under Section 217, 229 & 248 of the B.N.S., 2023 are non- cognizable offences. It is next submitted that Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023 envisages registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences only and Section 174 of the BNSS, 2023 provides the procedure when information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station in respect of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, so when the concerned procedural law does not permit registration of FIR in respect of non-cognizable offences, such a direction cannot be given in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is next submitted that whether or not, the petitioner was implicated in a false case is a highly disputed question of fact. It is next submitted that in the judgement dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh-cum-FTC Court for Rape Cases, has acquitted the petitioner because the prosecution failed to prove the case but there is no observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Hazaribagh or any other Court that the petitioner was implicated in a false case. It is then submitted that in order to make the respondents liable for payment of any compensation, the petitioner has to establish that he has falsely been implicated in a case and for that evidence is required to be produced because the respondents deny that the petitioner ( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 was implicated in a false case and there is no rhyme or reason assigned as to on what basis, the quantum of Rs.2 Crores has been claimed by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner if so advised may file a civil suit in the appropriate court, but the highly disputed question of fact, as to whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in any case cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Therefore, it is submitted that this W.P. (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed. 4. 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 so far as the prayer of the petitioner made in this writ petition to direct the respondents especially Respondent No.7 to lodge an FIR against the Respondent No.8 to 12 for the offences punishable under Section 217, 229 & 248 of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.9, 10 & 12 that all the said offences are non- cognizable offences and Section 174 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for procedure to be adopted in a case for non-cognizable offences is intimated to the Officer-in-charge of a police station, but for the registration of an FIR, commission of a cognizable offence is sine qua non as per Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023. Since, none of the offences in respect of which the petitioner wants a direction from this Court for registration of an FIR is cognizable offence, so this Court do not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioner to direct lodging an FIR in ( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 respect of the non-cognizable offences; when law does not permit the same. 5. So far as the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of compensation of Rs.2 Crores is concerned, perusal judgment dated 24.04.2024 passed in S.T. Case No.300 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh reveals that the petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner. Nowhere, there is observation or finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh or any other competent court of law that the respondents implicated the petitioner in a false case and the respondents denied that they have implicated the petitioner in any false case. It is needless to mention that if the prosecution failed to prove its case it is not a natural corollary that the case must be a false one. So the question whether the petitioner was implicated in a false case or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because evidence is required to be placed by the rival parties for adjudication of such disputed question of fact. Hence, the petitioner, if so advised, may file a civil suit in appropriate court of law, but this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner per direction of the respondents, to pay a compensation of ₹ 2 crores in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the claim of the petitioner is based on a highly disputed question of fact as to whether, he has been implicated in any false case; for adjudication of which recording of ( 2026:JHHC:3306 ) 6 W.P. (Cr.) No.604 of 2025 evidence by the rival parties is essential; more so because there is no material in the record to suggest as to on what basis the claim of compensation of rupees two crores is made by the petitioner. 6. This W.P. (Cr.), stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of February, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 17/02/2026