(2026:JHHC:5239) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1134 of 2025 Gorango Bauri, aged about 44 years, son of late Madan Bauri, resident of Village-Kura, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Devashish Ojha, son of Dipak Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand, Kura @ Ojhadih @ Girdhartand, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.- Bokaro 3. Vijay Ojha, son of Dipak Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand, Kura @ Ojhadih @ Girdhartand, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro 4. Dhruv Lal Ojha, son of Shitkanth Ojha, resident of Village-Birtand, P.O.-Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro 5. Raju Ojha, son of late Ajit Ojha, resident of Ojhadih (Kurma), P.O.- Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Baibhav, Advocate ….. By the Court:- I.A. No.1607 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to delete the names of the opposite party no.2- Dipak Ojha and opposite party no.6- Chandi Ojha from the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition as they have died. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts, prayer is allowed. (2026:JHHC:5239) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2025 4. Registry is directed to delete the opposite party nos.2 and 6 from the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition and renumber the remaining opposite parties as opposite party nos.2 to 5 with red ink. 5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 1134 of 2025 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 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2025 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the criminal revision, which was directed against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro dismissed the complaint in terms of Section 204 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 227 (4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and also to quash the said order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2023. In the said (2026:JHHC:5239) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2025 protest-cum-complaint case, summoning order was passed on 08.02.2024 and the complainant was directed to file requisites including process fee for issue of summons to the accused persons of the said case. Thereafter, the complaint did not take any steps nor filed any process fee for issue of the process against the accused persons of the case. The lawyer of the complainant only filed attendance on 10.06.2024 and 11.06.2024. As the process fee and other fees were not deposited by the complainant over a period of eight months, in violation of specific direction for the same by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro; the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 03.10.2024 in C.P. Case No. 1054 of 2024. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro was challenged by the complainant, before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2025 and the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro without finding any illegality or infirmity in order dated 03.10.2024, dismissed the revision. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before dismissal no peremptory order was passed and the complainant was under the bona fide impression that he has challenged the part of the cognizance order before the High Court and he is not required to pursue the matter in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner (2026:JHHC:5239) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2025 filed Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2024 in this Court, but the same has been dismissed as withdrawn. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that Section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. envisages that if the process fee and other fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint and the period of eight months, in which several dates were fixed before the learned Magistrate, is more than a reasonable time to file the process fee and other fees and those having not been filed, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro or the Sessions Judge, Bokaro; in dismissing the complaint and the criminal revision respectively. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, in view of the undisputed facts of this case, the only issue to be decided in this case, is whether period of eight months is a reasonable time for the complainant to file the process fee and other fees. In the considered opinion of this Court, the period of eight months is more than a reasonable time for the complainant to file the process fee and other fees. Admittedly, the same having not been filed within the period of eight months, neither the learned (2026:JHHC:5239) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2025 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro nor the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint and the criminal revision respectively, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th February, 2026 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 24/02/2026