Jharkhand High Court
Shaikh Mohammad @ Sheikh Mohammad vs The State Of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party on 22 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1012 of 2026
Shaikh Mohammad @ Sheikh Mohammad, aged about 28 years, S/o
Shaikh Abdul Mannan, R/o Behind M.A.D.A Head Office, Qtr. No.
B/53 Mada Colony, Luby Circular Road, P.O. and P.S. -Dhanbad,
District -Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kumr Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. 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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Barwadda P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021(S) corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 3506 of 2025(S) including the order taking cognizance dated
12.11.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class,
Dhanbad in connection with the said Barwadda P.S. Case No. 156 of
2021(S) corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3506 of 2025(S).
3. The brief fact of the case is that Barwadda P.S. Case No. 156 of
2021 was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by
the A.S.I. of Police, Barwadda Police Station, Dhanbad. The
petitioner is not a named accused person of the case. During the
1
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )course of investigation, the complicity of the petitioner was found
out and on the basis of the materials collected during the
investigation of the case, charge sheet has been submitted against
him. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a,
25(6), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
name of the petitioner has surfaced solely on the basis of the
confessional statement of the co-accused recorded by the police
during the investigation of the case which is not admissible in
evidence. It is next submitted that the essential ingredients in respect
of which charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner is
totally lacking. It is then submitted that the investigating officer after
a lapse of more than four years from the date of institution of the
F.I.R. has filed a supplementary charge sheet impleading the
petitioner without discovery of any fresh evidence. It is then
submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad
has taken cognizance against the petitioner in a routine and
mechanical manner without recording any satisfaction as to the
existence of prima facie materials against him, without discussing
the evidentiary value of confessional statements.
5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sujoy Ghosh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported
in 2026 INSC 267 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has reiterated the principle of law regarding exercise of the
2
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking quashing either
the F.I.R. or the criminal proceeding on the ground that they are
manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious but it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not
seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of
it being malicious as such. It is next submitted that the petitioner
seeks quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the absence of
evidence renders the proceeding to be a malicious.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sharif Ahmed and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
reported in MANU/SC/0368/2024 and submits that therein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that the
investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all
columns in the charge sheet so that the court can clearly understand
which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the
material evidence available on the record. It is next submitted that
the allegations against the petitioner are false. Hence, it is submitted
that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition and drawing attention of this Court to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramila Devi Vs.
3
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )State of Jharkhand, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 886, para -15 of
which reads as under:-
“15. Coming to the first issue, we have no hesitation to
record that the approach of the High Court was totally
erroneous. Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated
13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional Judicial
Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case
record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie
case made out under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the
IPC and Section 3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the
accused including appellants. Further, we find the approach
of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch
as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the
materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any
offence has been committed and thereafter went into the
aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have
committed the offence. Accordingly, the process moves to
the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the
case may be, against such persons.”
submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
approbated the order taking cognizance of the Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi as the Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi has taken cognizance on the basis of the materials available in
the record after perusal of the case diary and case record.
8. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharif Ahmed
and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) is
concerned, the learned Spl. P.P. submits that no doubt in this case,
the investigating officer has made clear and complete entries of all
the columns in the charge sheet, prescribed in law but even
assuming for the sake of argument though not admitting that the
same has not been filled up, keeping in view the fact that the
cognizance of the offence has already been taken, in view of the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N.
4
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
Rishbud Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1954) 2 SCC
934 para -13 of which reads as under:-
“13. The question then requires to be considered whether and
to what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated.
Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by
investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in
respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an
invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon.
Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a
mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure of the
court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference to such
a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an illegality
vitiating the proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A defect or
illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on
the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No
doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided
in Section 190 CrPC as the material on which cognizance is taken.
But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the
foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance. Section
190 CrPC is one out of a group of sections under the heading
“Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings”. The language of
this section is in marked contrast with that of the other sections of
the group under the same heading i.e. Sections 193 and 195 to 199.
These latter sections regulate the competence of the court and bar its
jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance therewith. But
Section 190 does not. While no doubt, in one sense, clauses (a), (b)
and (c) of Section 190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of
cognizance, it is not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid
police report is prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid
report may still fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1),
(whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and
in any case cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a
proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation Section 537
CrPC which is in the following terms is attracted:
“537. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason
of error or omission in charge or other proceedings.–Subject
to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence
or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be
reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account–
(a) of any error, omission or irregularity in the
complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order,
judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any
enquiry or other proceedings under this Code,
***
unless such error, omission, irregularity or misdirection
has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.”
If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report
vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to
investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial
which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the
investigation can be shown to have brought about a
5
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the
course of investigation does not affect the competence and the
jurisdiction of the court for trial is well-settled as appears from
the cases in Parbhu v. King Emperor [Parbhu v. King
Emperor, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1943-44) 71 IA 75 : AIR
1944 PC 73] and Lumbhardar Zutshi v. R. [Lumbhardar
Zutshi v. R., 1949 SCC OnLine PC 64 : (1949-50) 77 IA 62 :
AIR 1950 PC 26] These no doubt relate to the illegality of
arrest in the course of investigation while we are concerned in
the present cases with the illegality with reference to the
machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction
may have a bearing on the question of prejudice or miscarriage
of justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the
investigation has no relation to the competence of the court.
We are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the
cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has
proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent
investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of
justice has been caused thereby.” (Emphasis supplied)It is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that if cognizance is in fact
taken on a Police Report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory
provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the
result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the
illegality in the investigation can be shown to have been brought
about a miscarriage of justice.
9. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of
Indian the case of Central Bureau of Investigaton. Vs. Aryan Singh
etc., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, para -11 of which reads as
under:
“11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that
the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is
malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the
investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on
conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been
chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in
observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be
considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered
at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what
6
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the
material collected during the course of the investigation,
which warranted the accused to be tried.” (Emphasis
supplied)It is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that therein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner has laid down
the law that whether the criminal proceeding was malicious or not is
not required to be considered at the stage of cognizance and the
same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, so far as the contention of the
petitioner, relying upon Section 22 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 that any confession to a police officer is inadmissible is
concerned, submits that Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read in
conjunction with Section 24 which reads as under:-
“22. Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or
promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.–A confession
made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if
the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been
caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having
reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a
person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to
give the accused person grounds which would appear to him
reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any
advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
proceedings against him:
Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused
by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the
opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant:
Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it
does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a
promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the
accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was
drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need
not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those
questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to
make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against
him.
24. Consideration of proved confession affecting person
making it and others jointly under trial for same offence..–
7
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same
offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting
himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take
into consideration such confession as against such other person as
well as against the person who makes such confession.
Explanation I.–“Offence”, as used in this section, includes the
abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
Explanation II.–A trial of more persons than one held in the
absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply
with a proclamation issued under Section 84 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial
for the purpose of this section.” (Emphasis supplied)And submits that therein in no uncertain manner has been laid
down that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the
same offence and the confession made by one of such persons
affecting himself or some other of the persons is proved, the court
may take into consideration such confession as against such other
persons as well as against the person who makes such confession. So,
at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not expected to
deal with the matter to discard the charge sheet merely on the
ground that the materials in the record also includes the confessional
statement of the co-accused. It is next submitted that this is a case
where admittedly materials are there against some of the accused
persons of the case but the petitioner says that there is no material
against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the Magistrate can
consider such plea at the time of framing of charge but taking
cognizance on the basis of Police Report is not the stage to add or
subtract any penal provision of law other than the ones mentioned in
the charge sheet by the police. Hence, it is submitted that this
criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
8
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
11. 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 as has been held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat
Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539
para -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 the Magistrate has taken
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 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)
That 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
9
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the
accused.
12. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held 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, para -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 depending upon the material
collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR
and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied)Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid
down the law that the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police
report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking
10
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only
at the time of framing of the charge.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but during the
investigation of the case, the name of the petitioner has transpired. In
the charge sheet at serial no.15 at internal page no.20 and 21 of the
charge sheet, the column relating to the petitioner has been filled up
as per the format prescribed by law and all the columns have been
duly filled up by the investigating officer. The charge sheet
submitted was accompanied by the case diary of the case and the
same has also been submitted by the police along with the charge
sheet.
14. So far as the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, passed in
connection with G.R. Case No. 3506 of 2025(S) is concerned, the same
has reference to the order dated 07.12.2021 where cognizance of the
offences were already taken by the court concerned in the same case.
The petitioner has not challenged the order taking cognizance dated
07.12.2021. The need for drawing up of the impugned order dated
12.11.2025 in the said case arose because of the supplementary
charge sheet being filed inter alia against some more accused persons
named in column 11 of the charge sheet. The learned Judicial
Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has considered that cognizance has
already been taken and upon perusal of the materials in the record, it
formed the opinion that there are sufficient ground for proceeding
further against the accused including the petitioner as well and
considering the same issued summons to the accused persons of the
11
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:14390 )
case. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that charge has yet to be
framed in this case.
15. Under such circumstances, since the Magistrate has acted upon a
supplementary charge sheet based upon Police Report which is
supported by the case diary and the case diary is not before this
Court, this Court do not find any illegality in the order impugned
before this Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
16. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd April, 2026
AFR/Sonu-
Uploaded on 18.05.2026
12
Cr.M.P. No.1012 of 2026
