Jharkhand High Court
Jasinta Minz vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 May, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.143 of 2025
------
1. Jasinta Minz, aged about 69 years, W/o Late Khristopher Minz.
2. Samir Minz, aged about… yrs. S/o Late Khrishtopher Minz.
3. Ema Bara, aged about 38 yrs, W/o Manoj Xess
4. Josima Xaxa, aged about 42 years, W/o Bhushan Bara.
5. Bhushan Bara, aged about 51 yrs, S/o Late Peter Bara.
All R/o Village Sogra, Pethiyar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Pakartanr, Dist.
Simdega ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rashmi Sanchita Ekka, aged about 37 yrs, D/o Sushil Ekka, R/o
Village 100, Deogaon, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gumla
… Opposite Parties
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
------
PRESENT
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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of MP MLA
Case No. 05 of 2021 which has been registered consequent upon the
Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Simdega being
transferred to the Court of MP/MLA being the Special Judicial
1 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, on the ground that a subsequent case being
Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA
Case No. 10 of 2021, got quashed by the High Court in Criminal Revision
No. 521 of 2023. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated
16.08.2024 passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 whereby and
whereunder the learned Trial Court allowed the petition filed under
Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge and additionally framed
charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Prayer
has also been made to quash the order of framing of additional charge on
09.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Cases,
Ranchi and yet another prayer has been made for quashing of the order
dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in C.P. Case
No. 68 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the said Court found prima facie
case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the
I.P.C. The last prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated
09.07.2018 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in complaint case no. 68
of 2018 whereby and whereunder the said court has explained the
substance of accusation to all the 05 accused persons of that case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 herein as
complainant filed complaint case no. 68 of 2018 alleging therein that the
complainant is a teacher in St. Ignatius High School, Gumla. Soni Minz is
another teacher in that school. Soni Minz solemnized marriage with
Anup Bharti in October, 2014 under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act. Soni and Anup remained as husband and wife. Soni
intimated about her marriage to the complainant-opposite party no.2 and
2 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
requested her to intimate the fact of her marriage with Anup to her
family members. The complainant on 02.01.2018 started with her mother
and one Shashi Bhushan Bakhla to the village of Soni Minz. The
petitioner no.5 herein who is the accused no. 3 of that complaint case is
the maternal uncle of Soni Minz and is also the Mukhiya of the village.
The complainant first stopped her vehicle and went to the court yard of
the petitioner no.5 Bhusan Bara and disclosed that she is the friend of
Soni Minz. The complainant disclosed to Bhushan Bara (the petitioner
no.5 herein) that Soni Minz has requested the complainant of that case to
intimate the marriage of Soni Minz with Anup Bharti to the family
members of Soni Minz; hence, the complainant has come to their village.
The petitioner no.5 herein, namely Bhushan Bara, at this become enraged
and abused the complainant by telling that she being a member of
Scheduled Tribe is siding with a Hindu. Bhushan Bara called his wife,
sister and told them to disrobe the complainant and to put a garland of
chappal and to take her to the police station by beating her. Bhushan Bara
closed his main gate of his court yard. At this, the complainant pleaded
that since the Bhushan Bara is the Mukhiya, he should talk to Soni Minz,
but at this Bhushan Bara abused the complainant by using filthy
language and manhandled Bhushan Bakhla who was also accompanying
the complainant and attempted to beat them by lifting the chair. The
accused persons Joshima Xaxa (petitioner no.4 herein) Ema Bara
(petitioner no.3 herein) caught hold of the hand of the complainant and
disrobed her. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 also came there and together
they abused the complainant as well as Shashi Bhushan Bakhla and
3 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
assaulted them and insulted them by telling that they are ‘Dalal’ of the
girls. In the meanwhile, police arrived there and took the complainant
and the persons accompanying her to Simdega Mahila police station.
Nothing was asked by the police from the complainant and the persons
accompanying her but they were then taken to Pakhratanr police station
and the complainant was made to execute a bond and after that they
were released. The complainant became terrorised by acts of the accused
persons of the case and become so worried the she became ill and only
after medication, she could be fit to file the complaint.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the
learned S.D.J.M. Simdega found prima facie case for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. and passed the
summoning order. The petitioners herein appeared before the Court of
learned S.D.J.M. Simdega and vide order dated 09.07.2018 passed in the
said complaint case no.68 of 2018 the learned S.D.J.M. Simdega explained
the substance of accusation of the offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. to the accused persons of the case; to which the
accused persons of case, who are the petitioners in this case pleaded not
guilty and claimed to tried and trial begun.
5. The complainant examined the witnesses and on earlier occasion
also the petitioners moved this court vide Cr. M.P. No. 03 of 2024
challenging the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05
of 2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi whereby and
whereunder the Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi rejected the prayer of the
4 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
accused persons of the case to examine the investigating Officer of
Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 as defence witnesses.
6. This Court vide order dated 17.01.2024 allowed the said prayer of
the petitioners herein who is the accused persons of the said case to
examine Mirju Hembrom- the investigating Officer of Simdega Mahila
P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019, as a defence witnesses. Thereafter, in Complaint
Case No. 68 of 2018 which has been renumbered as MP/MLA Case No.
05 of 2021; a petition was filed by the complainant for alteration of charge
under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was
registered as M.C.A. No. 3404 of 2024, the learned Special J.M.F.C.,
Ranchi considered the fact that C.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Bakhla has
specifically stated that the accused persons had said to disrobe the
complainant and pulled her scarf (dupatta). The same was also
corroborated by C.W.2 Anna Ekka beside the complainant herself who
was examined as C.W.3.
7. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate considered the ingredients
of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sajjan Kumar versus
C.B.I. (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein it has been held that at the time of charge
it is sufficient if the court is able to form a presumption regarding
existence of ingredients constituting the offence found upon the material
placed before it and at this stage it is not necessary for the Court to
undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or the evidentiary value
of the materials placed before it. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate also
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
5 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
of Anant Prakash versus State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105 wherein it
was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there was no fault on
the part of the court in entertaining the application filed by the informant
for alteration of the charge. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate then
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of
Onkar Nath Mishra versus State (2008) 2 SCC 561 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that at the stage of charge, the court is
only required to take the materials and documents on the record at their
face value as from the materials in the record. As it appeared to the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate that the materials available in the
record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section
354 of the I.P.C. and the materials have a nexus with the alleged offence;
accordingly, he allowed the M.C.A. No. 3404 of 2024 and ordered for
putting up the record on 09.09.2024 for framing of altered charge and
explanation of altered charge to the accused persons. On 09.01.2026
attendance was filed by the petitioners herein before the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi, the charges were altered
and Section 354 of the I.P.C. was added. On 16.08.2024 considering the
order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 143 of 2025 whereby the stay
order has been vacated; charges under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the
I.P.C.; the substance of accusationof which offences were earlier
explained to the accused persons of the said case, were again explained
with a fresh charge of Section 354 of the I.P.C. and the same were
explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried in respect of the fresh charges. The learned
6 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
Special Judicial Magistrate then fixed the record to 02.02.2026 for
evidence.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is
the 5th journey of the petitioner to this court, the earlier ones have been
mentioned in para 2 of this Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that for the self-
same occurrence opposite party no.2, lodged an F.I.R. on 05.03.2019
which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 and upon the
same also being transferred to the Court of MP/MLA said case has been
renumbered as MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021. It is then submitted that
police after investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 submitted
charge-sheet against all the accused persons and the learned trial court
took cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge sheet was
submitted by police in that case. The prayer of the petitioners for
discharged was rejected by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Ranchi. The accused persons of the case preferred criminal revision
No. 521 of 2023. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated
04.09.2023 in the said criminal revision No. 521 of 2023 allowed the
criminal revision and quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Mahila
P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021.
9. It is next submitted that in view of the judgement of Co-Ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 521 of 2023 nothing
remained in the instant complaint case and the continuation of the
complaint case in gross violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy as
enunciated under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. will amount to abuse of
process of law. It is further submitted that the order dated 16.08.2024 by
7 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
which the charge was altered by adding the charge under Section 354 of
the I.P.C. has given a fresh cause of action to the petitioners. The
petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 697 of 2024 but under
wrong nomenclature Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 697 of 2024 was filed.
Hence, the petitioners withdrew the same with a liberty to file fresh
application.
10. It is then submitted that the petitioners filed an application under
Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C. in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 to be
amalgamated with MP/MLA case No. 10 of 2021, but the prayer of the
petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner filed
criminal revision no. 468 of 2023 by challenging the order dated
31.03.2023, but before the matter could be finally decided and petitioners
got discharged in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no. 19 of 2019. Hence, the
criminal revision was dismissed being infructuous. It is next submitted
that the date of occurrence of complaint case no. 68 of 2018 and Simdega
Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 are both on 02.01.2018. It is next
submitted that Soni Minz whose statement was recorded by the
investigating Officer of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019
apparently under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. did not support the case of
the complainant. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan versus State of Kerela
reported in (2022) INSC 1262; it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that since the facts of the case that was before the Supreme
Court of India are the same as allegation of offences in the previous three
cases therefore, as per the mandate under Section 300(2) of the Code of
8 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
Criminal Procedure, it was held that the consent of the State Government
is necessary for such prosecution and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
that case went on to hold that the initiation of the subsequent
proceedings are not in accordance with law and the proceedings were
quashed in that case.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
P. Manikandan versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Others in
Criminal Appeal No. 5478 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024 in para 31 of which as
reported in Manu S.C. 1368 of 2024; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
took note of the three conditions laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan
(Supra) and as in the facts of the case, as a previous proceedings did take
place wherein the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him
to death and all the three conditions were fulfilled so, in the facts of that
case came to the conclusion that the right enshrined under Article 20(2) of
the Constitution of India of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme
court of India stands violated and all process being subsequent to the
direction of the High Court were quashed and set aside and the appellant
were acquitted of all charges.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para-17 of
this Cr.M.P. the petitioner has quoted para 7 of the judgment passed by a
Co-Ordinate Bench in criminal revision no. 521 of 2023 and therein the
Co-Ordinate Bench has dealt with lucidly, the reasons why it quashed the
charge. It is further submitted that the charge framed in the said Mahila
P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 10 of 2021
9 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
also involved offences punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C.
therefore the addition of the said charge in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. in this present case by way of
alteration of charge has prejudiced the petitioners and that is the reason
why the petitioners have come up with this petition with the prayer as
prayed for made in this Cr.M.P.
13. It is next submitted that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 has
gravely prejudiced the case of the defence of the petitioner as the defence
witnesses have been examined in complaint case no. 68 of 2018
corresponding to MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021. So, relegating the
petitioners once again to the rigmarole of another criminal proceeding
arising out of the same set of facts and allegations is in gross violation of
Article 20(2) read with Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made for in this Cr.M.P. be
allowed.
14. The learned G.A.-III, learned counsel for the State assisted by the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. It is submitted by learned G.A.-
III that the offences involved in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019
are not entirely same with that of the offences involved in the Complaint
Case No. 68 of 2018 corresponding to MP/MLA P.S. Case No.05 of 2021
and the same submission of the State is adopted by the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 also and both of them submits that since the
facts of both the cases are different, hence there is no justifiable reason to
quash the earlier instituted complaint case; for any subsequent event
10 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
because principle of law as has been reiterated even in the case of T.P.
Gopalakrishnan (Supra) is that for jeopardy comes into play when there
is previous proceeding in a court of law or judicial tribunal and
subsequent proceedings for the same facts are instituted, in that case, the
subsequent proceedings is to be quashed and certainly not the priorly
instituted proceeding. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further
defends the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Simdega in Complaint
Case No. 68 of 2018 whereby the summoning order and they order by
which the substance of accusation has been explained and also defends
the order by which the alteration of charge by adding the offences
punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. has been passed by the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Court and submits that this
Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed.
15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, so far as the prayer of
the petitioner regarding quashing the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by
learned S.D.J.M., Simdega in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 as well as
the order dated 09.07.2018 in the said complaint case no.68 of 2018 by the
S.D.J.M., Simdega by which it has explained the substance of accusation
under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 342 of the I.P.C. is concerned; the
undisputed facts remain that earlier also in the same-same case, the
petitioner no.5 filed a Cr.M.P. No. 03 of 2024. At that time, he did not
raise any objection regarding the same. The undisputed fact also remains
that in the said complaint case no. 68 of 2018 corresponding to MP/MLA
Case No. 05 of 2021, witnesses have been examined, the statement under
11 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded and even defence witnesses
have already been examined. The perusal of the record reveals that the
materials in the record is sufficient to hold prima facie, the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 of the I.P.C. as already
discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, while
discussing the brief facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that at this belated stage, there is no justifiable reason to
accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 05.02.2018
and 09.07.2018 passed by the S.D.J.M., Simdega in Complaint Case No. 68
of 2018 in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. ; As at
this belated stage it requires appreciation of the evidence that the already
come on record, which is prohibited in exercise of the power by the High
Court under section 528 of the B.N.S.S.. Accordingly, the said two
prayers being without any merits are dismissed.
16. So far as the order dated 16.08.2024 passed in the MP/MLA case
no. 05 of 2021 and the framing of additional charge dated 09.01.2026 both
passed in MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 by learned Special JMFC, Ranchi
are concerned; the same relates to alteration of the charge by addition of
the offences punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. It is a settled
principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Hasanbhai Vallibhai Qureshi versus State of Gujarat &
Others (2004) 5 SCC 347 that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure stipulates that any Court may alter or add any charge at any
time before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever, such alteration or
addition is made, the same is to be read out and informed to the accused.
12 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
In the said case, it was also held that if addition or alteration of charge is
necessary, the Court is free to do so and there can be no legal bar to
appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate.
17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remain
that in their deposition in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2018 the C.W.1 has
specifically stated that the accused disrobed the complainant and pulled
her scarf (Dupatta). The same was corroborated by C.W.2 and C.W.3
being the complainant herself. Under such circumstances, keeping in
view the materials in the record, the learned Special JMFC, MP/MLA,
Ranchi having exercise the power vested upon it under Section 216 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law; this Court do not
find any justifiable reason either to quash the said order dated 16.08.2024
or the order dated 09.01.2026, in exercise of its power under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the said two orders is
dismissed.
18. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire
criminal proceedings in connection with MP/MLA Case No. 05 of 2021 is
concerned, the only ground agitated by the petitioner is that
subsequently, the opposite party no.2/complainant of complaint case no.
68 of 2018 files Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2019 in which the
witness Soni Minz does not support the case of the prosecution in her
statement apparently recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the Co-
Ordinate Bench in criminal revision no. 521 of 2023 vide order dated
04.09.2023 has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of the
subsequently instituted Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2019, while
13 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
considering the order of the trial court by which the trial court rejected
the petition for discharge of the accused persons of the case.
19. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as this complaint case
no. 68 of 2018 is concerned, Soni Minz was not an eye-witness to the
occurrence of the facts of this case. This case was a priorly instituted case
as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of T.P. Gopalakrishnan (Supra) also in paragraph-31 which reads as
under: –
” 31. In our considered view, the position of law that the principle applies
is unquestionable. The three conditions laid down in T.P.Gopalakrishnan
(supra) are: Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a
court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the
person must have been (2011) 1 SCC 284 (2012) 7 SCC 621 prosecuted.
The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive.
Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be
in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence
and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the
first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh
proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and
punished for the same offence and same set of facts., the settle principle of
law is that if there is a previous proceeding before the court of law or
judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction, then institution of the
subsequent proceedings in respect of the same offences is in gross
violation of right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as
well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now the
undisputed facts remain in this case is to not to quash the subsequent
case, but to quash the earlier proceedings which is the complaint case only
because in a subsequent police case, the accused persons has been
discharged. (Emphasis supplied)
the institution of the subsequent proceedings in respect of the same
offences is in gross violation of right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India as well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and not the earlier proceeding, as is the case here in this case.
14 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:14797 ]
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the contention of
the petitioner of double jeopardy do not fulfil the three conditions laid
down in the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan (supra) relied upon by the
petitioners themselves. Further, this Court finds force in the submission
of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the offence
involved in the Complaint Case No.68 of 2018 is not entirely the same as
the offence involved in Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019.
Moreover, undisputedly this is the earlier case not the later case. Under
such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that there is no
justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceedings of a priorly
instituted case, on the ground that in a subsequent case, the accused
persons have been discharged. Therefore, this Court do not find any
merit in this Cr.M.P. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
20. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.
21. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., pending I.A. if any
stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 13th of May, 2026
AFR/ Amar
Uploaded on -21/05/2026
15 Cr. M.P. No.143 of 2025
