Md. Jalil @ Md. Jalil Ansari @ Bhola v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. : None ….. By the Court:-

2. Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st 1 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) Class-VI, Ranchi in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No.75 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No.2330 of 2022 by which basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police upon investigation of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed to 03.08.2026 for appearance of the petitioners.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in commission of the offence of theft of 12-wheel truck bearing registration no. JH-01-AL-9147 loaded with wheat and received the stolen property.

6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant- owner of the truck, police registered Nagri P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022 against unknown persons and took up investigation of the case. During the pendency of the case, petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 filed A.B.P. No. 1626 of 2022 in which an order was passed for not taking any coercive steps till further orders. During the investigation of the case, police recorded the statement of five witnesses whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in paragraph no.13 of charge sheet and on the basis of investigation, police the petitioners have committed the said offences and submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the said offences. 2 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) Basing upon the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners surfaced during the investigation of the case on the disclosure of the co-accused persons in their respective confessional statements which has no evidentiary value. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order does not reflect application of judicial mind by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi and the impugned order is bad, cryptic and unreasonable. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

8. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that it is a settled principle of law, that Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence basing upon the Police Report has very limited role to play. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that the only contention of the petitioners is that the materials in the record is inadequate to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code and which can only be considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi at the time of framing of charge. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being involved in commission of theft of 12-wheel truck loaded with wheat and receiving the stolen property and the same was 3 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) found to be true during the investigation of the case; by the police. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of issuing summons to the accused person based upon the Police Report, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:- “23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the Magistrate has 4 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied)

10. It is also a settled principle of law as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge- sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed collected during the material depending upon 5 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) that a Magistrate in a case which is based on a Police Report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge.

11. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is evident that though the cognizance of the offence has been taken on 08.08.2022 in Nagri P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 2330 of 2022 and the petitioners are very much aware about the same, yet they are evading appearance in the trial court for over three and half years; thereby depriving the learned trial court to take a call as to whether to frame charge or not. The only contention of the petitioners is that the materials in the record is insufficient to constitute the offences against them. Such a call can only be taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi at the time of framing of charge as per the settled principle of law.

12. In view of such settled principle of law, since, the petitioners themselves are not law abiding citizens and are evading their appearance before the learned trial court and because of their non- cooperation, the learned trial court is unable to consider framing of charge, hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the charge sheet has already submitted and 6 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023 (2026:JHHC:14404) basing upon the same, cognizance of the offence has been taken and summoning order has been passed, in the absence of any illegality in the order concerned; more so in the absence of the case diary, wherein the details of the materials against the petitioners has been mentioned.

13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th May, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 13/05/2026 7 Cr.M.P. No.2687 of 2023