Ramgarh v. State of Jharkhand
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:33981] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1248 of 2025 ------ 1. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Mangal Singh, R/o K.B. Get Kuju, Near Post Office, Kuju South, Murpa, P.O- Kuju, P.S.- Mandu & District- Ramgarh. 2. Rati Mahto, aged about 67 years, S/o Banshi Mahto, R/o Ara Basti Baghlta, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ara, P.O- Sarubera, P.S.- Mandu & District- Ramgarh. 3. Nemdhari Mahto, aged about 58 years, S/o Dayal Mahto, R/o Ara Basti, P.O.- Sarubera, P.S.- Mandu & District- Ramgarh. 4. Baijnath Prasad, aged about 43 years, S/o Jawahar Prasad, R/o M No-41, 48 Colony, Near D.A.V. School, Ara, P.O.- Sarubera, P.S.- Mandu & District- Ramgarh. Versus State of Jharkhand … ------ … Petitioners Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.15040 of 2025 1. 2. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 1 Cr. M.P. No.1248 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33981] 3. Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1248 of 2025 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2025 involving the offences punishable under Sections 281, 106(1) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is going on at present and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is the Principal of Bal Vidya Mandir School, petitioner No.2 is the Chairman of the said school, petitioner No.3 is the Secretary of the said school and the petitioner No.4 is the Office Manager of the said school in which the deceased namely Zeehab Alam was studying and while returning from the school, the driver of the vehicle namely Md. Akrar Ansari, rashly and negligently driving the vehicle of the said school, ran the vehicle over the deceased; because of which the deceased namely Zeehab Alam died. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. There is absolutely no allegation against 2 Cr. M.P. No.1248 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33981] the petitioners of either indulging in any rash and negligent act or causing death by negligence. The main allegation is against the co- accused – Md. Akrar Ansari. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards page No.03, Annexure-4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.06.2025 and submits that the said Md. Akrar Ansari is the driver, was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered, is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that during the investigation of the case, it has come on record that the vehicle in question was not insured against third-party risk and did not have any pollution under control certificate. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 are that:- (1) (2) There must be death of the person in question; The accused must have caused death; and 3 Cr. M.P. No.1248 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33981] (3) That such act of accused was rash and negligent and that does not amount to culpable homicide. 8. Now coming the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the co-accused – Md. Akrar Ansari of having caused death of the deceased namely Zeehab Alam by running a vehicle over him, by rash and negligent driving. There is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence or in any way instrumental in the said rash and negligent action of the co- accused person. There is also no allegation against the petitioners of having caused the death of the deceased. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioners. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 281 of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (1) The accused was driving a vehicle or riding it; (2) He was doing so on a public way; (3) He was also doing so rashly or negligently; (4) The act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. 11. Now coming the facts of the case, there was no allegation against the petitioners of driving any vehicle or riding the same on any public way and the question of their driving any vehicle or riding the same 4 Cr. M.P. No.1248 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33981] rashly and negligently does not arise. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 281 of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioners. 12. In view of the discussions made above, as neither of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered, is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety; therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2025 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 13. Accordingly, the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2025 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 19/11/2025 5 Cr. M.P. No.1248 of 2025