Vikash Paswan, aged about 22 years, S/o Binod Paswan, R/o Mukunda, Itkithakurgaon, Post Office v. … Opposite Party ------ For the
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:34756 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3289 of 2025 ------ Vikash Paswan, aged about 22 years, S/o Binod Paswan, R/o Mukunda, Itkithakurgaon, Post Office and Police Station-Itki, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-835301 … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate : Mrs. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.PP ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No.562 of 2025 corresponding the G.R. No.2074 of 2025 in connection with Itki P.S. Case No.08 of 2025, whereby the application of the petitioner for supply of documents as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 230 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to direct the learned Trial Court to supply the complete police paper along with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused of Itki P.S. Case No.08 of 2025. After submission of charge-sheet, police paper was supplied to the Advocate of the petitioner. The Advocate of the petitioner has made endorsement acknowledging the receipt of the 1 Cr. M.P. No.3289 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34756 ] police paper in the remarks column of the order-sheet of the concerned case record. The petitioner never raised any grievance before the learned Magistrate who supplied the police paper to him, of any deficiency in the police paper supplied to him. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 22.09.2025. The case was fixed for hearing on framing of the charge. At this stage, the petitioner filed a petition claiming that copy of the case diary beyond paragraph 191 has not been supplied to the petitioner and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as mentioned in paragraph 19 of the case diary has also not been provided. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi considered this conduct of the petitioner in not raising any grievance before the learned Magistrate who supplied the copy of police paper to the petitioner and before whom the petitioner through his Advocate received the police papers without demur and only when the case was fixed for hearing on the charge, as a tactic to defer the charge being framed against the petitioner by inventing a novel idea of claiming that the copy of case diary beyond paragraph 191 was not supplied to him and fixed the case to 13.11.2025 for consideration of framing of charge. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2025. It is further submitted that without fully complying with the provisions under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 2 Cr. M.P. No.3289 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34756 ] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.K. Sasikala Vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771, wherein in the facts of that case, it was held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the application made by the accused person of the case concerned for certified copy of all documents and in alternative for inspection of the unmarked unexhibited documents in the trial pending was rejected; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India went on to observe in paragraph 24.4 that if the accused also desire inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents, such inspection will be allowed by the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 and submits that in paragraph 18 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, in para 47 of which it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a power under Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any time after the charge sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C., committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. 7. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Spl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is no rhyme and reason as to why the 3 Cr. M.P. No.3289 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34756 ] petitioner never raised the grievance of not being supplied with the copy of the entire case diary or the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate who has admittedly supplied the copy of police paper to the petitioner. 9. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi has rightly observed that the conduct of the petitioner; to raise the plea that he has not been supplied with the entire case diary for the first time on 01.11.2025, to which date the case was fixed for framing of charge, was just a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner to defer the framing of charge but since the charge has already been framed on 18.11.2025, the petitioner if so intends may inspect the records and take note of the relevant materials if any which has been missed out in the police paper supplied to the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. 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 the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has been supplied the police paper on 08.09.2025. Neither the Advocate of the petitioner nor the petitioner raised any grievance before the learned Magistrate, who supplied the police paper till today, that the police paper supplied to them are incomplete in any respect. For the first time, when the case was fixed on 01.11.2025 for framing of charge after commitment of the case to the court of Sessions before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi, a petition was filed claiming that police paper supplied is incomplete. 4 Cr. M.P. No.3289 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34756 ] 11. In view of the conduct of the petitioner in not being diligent in pointing out that the police paper supplied to him is incomplete to the Magistrate concerned, who supplied it or any day before the case was fixed for framing of charge, this Court do not find any error on the part of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in observing that the conduct of the petitioner was a dilatory tactics to prevent the charge being framed in this case. 12. Be that as it may, as has been held in paragraph 24.4 in the case of V.K. Sasikala Vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police (supra); since the charge has already been framed, the petitioner if so advised, may inspect the case record as per law by paying appropriate fee and can take note of all the relevant facts and if such a prayer is made, it is expected that the trial Court will allow the same in accordance with law but this Court do not find any justification to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No.562 of 2025 corresponding the G.R. No.2074 of 2025 in connection with Itki P.S. Case No.08 of 2025; there being no illegality in the same. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed with aforesaid observations. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of November, 2025 AFR/ Madhav Uploaded on 26/11/2025 5 Cr. M.P. No.3289 of 2025