2026:JHHC:3121 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.3356 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Mishra, aged about 40 years, son of Tarkeshwar Mishra, Resident of Quarter No. C/01/004, Lakhimata Officer's Colony, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallave, ASGI ------ 2/05.02.2026 Heard the parties. 2. This petition has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 18/8/2025, passed by learned Special Judge CBI cum Additional District Judge- V, Dhanbad, in connection with CBI/SPE/ACB/Dhanbad PS in connection with RC Case No.08 (A)/ 2024 (D), whereby the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 61 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted bearing charge sheet No. 13 of 2024 in the aforesaid sections. In the charge sheet, it has come that the trap was made on 27/9/2024 and the co- accused Gaur Rawani was arrested with the tainted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- received from the complainant on saying of the petitioner. Subsequently, he was directed to talk with petitioner and the petitioner has asked "Kaam ho gaya", upon which the co-accused Gaur Ravani expressed, "Yes". This version has been heard by the 2026:JHHC:3121 2 independent witnesses. 4. He then submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner saying that the petitioner has taken the bribe of Rs. 20,000/-, however the fact remains that the bribe amount was handed over to the co-accused Gaur Rawani and the same was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, wherein in the cognizance order, it is stated that the said amount has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He also submits that on the wrong facts, the cognizance has been taken. In view of that, this Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there against the petitioner of taking bribe through the co-accused Gaur Rawani. He also submits that in view of that this Court may pass appropriate order. 6. In view of the above and considering that the allegations are there against the petitioner of demanding bribe through accomplice namely Gaur Rawani and the amount has also been recovered from the possession of Gaur Rawani. Thus, the involvement of the petitioner being the accomplice cannot be ruled out. 7. In that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and the charge sheet has also been submitted saying that the petitioner has demanded money through the said Gaur Rawani and the said amount has also been recovered from the said Gaur Rawani. However, in the order taking cognizance, this fact has been 2026:JHHC:3121 3 wrongly considered by the learned court and the learned court has held that the amount has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It appears that the factual error has occurred in the order taking cognizance. 8. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance dated 18/8/2025 passed by learned Special Judge CBI cum Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad in connection with RC case No. 08(A)/2024(D) is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to pass afresh order on the point of cognizance in accordance with law. 10. In light of above observation, this petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 05.02.2026 R.Kumar