Jharkhand High Court
Pratima Raven vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 23 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:11970]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1090 of 2026
------
Pratima Raven, aged about 61 years, W/O Milton Kujur,
Resident of Bank Colony, Near Jesus Mary School Korrah, P.O.-
Korrah, P.S.- Korrah, District- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand)
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
------
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 including the order
taking cognizance dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.
1018 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4164 of 2014 whereby and
where under the learned court below has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police against the
petitioner after the investigation of the case.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the
cashier of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Korrah Chowk Branch and in that
capacity, has dishonestly misappropriated the soiled notes deposited
with the said Bank. On the basis of the written report submitted by the
1 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]
informant, police registered Sadar P.S. Case No. 1018 of 2014 and took
up investigation of the case. Though the F.I.R. was registered against
the cashiers namely Ramakant Sinha and Manmeet Kumar Sinha but
during the course of the investigation, it was found out that Manmeet
Kumar Sinha has not committed any offence. The employer of the
petitioner granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. During
the investigation, it came to light that the petitioner and the named co-
accused person namely Ramakant Sinha have committed the said
offence and finding thus, charge sheet was submitted against the
petitioner; basing upon which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the said offences in respect of
which the charge sheet was submitted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharif Ahmed &
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2024 INSC
363 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed 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 file. Learned counsel for
the petitioner next submits that the police, in this case, has submitted a
perfunctory charge sheet. It is then submitted that the allegation
against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was not the cashier during the relevant period of time. Hence, it is
2 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]
submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submits that in this case, the police has
mentioned the details of the offences of the petitioner in the charge
sheet. Page No.2 of the charge sheet at serial No.11 is dedicated to the
petitioner. It is next submitted that the charge sheet was submitted by
the police and the case-diary also contains the materials including the
sanction for prosecution, that was accorded by the employer of the
petitioner, on being satisfied that she was squarely responsible for the
embezzlement of Rs.4,34,110/-by way of dishonest misappropriation
of the soiled notes. It is then submitted that since cognizance has been
taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh basing
upon the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation of the
case, hence, at this stage before consideration of charge by the learned
Court concerned, it will be premature to pre-judge the issue at this
stage which is not desirable in exercise of the power under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., 2023; when the learned Judicial Magistrate has to take
call in the matter of framing of charges. Hence, it is submitted that this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be
dismissed.
6. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
3 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]
the case of H.N. Rishbudand Another vs. State of Delhi reported in
(1954) 2 SCC 934, paragraph No.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,
***
4 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]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
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)has laid down the law 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 brought about a miscarriage of justice.
7. 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. 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 be5 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]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)that 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.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner dishonestly
misappropriated the soiled notes worth Rs.4,34,110/-. The employer of
the petitioner on being satisfied about the material against the
petitioner, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
During the investigation of the case, the involvement of the petitioner
6 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]
was established; which has been mentioned in detail in the case-diary
of the case.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that it will not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceedings by
taking into consideration of defence that she is not liable for being
prosecuted, for having committed the offence alleged against her, as it
is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which
corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) cannot consider the
defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of the
evidence put forth by the accused, as that would be the job of the trial
court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others
reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.
10. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be
conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which corresponds to Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., 2023) as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda
& Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of
which reads as under:-
“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it
appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini
trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while
deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As
observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no
mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of
power under Section 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage
7 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:11970]of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the
particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)”
11. The undisputed fact remains that the police after investigation of
the case, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. Under such
circumstances; when charge is yet to be framed, it will be premature to
quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner which is
continuing on the basis of the final report submitted by the police, after
investigation of the case, the details of which has been mentioned in
the case diary; of course which is not before this Court, as the same has
not been brought on record by the petitioner, for reasons best known to
her. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit
case where the prayer of the petitioner, as made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to by this Court in exercise of
its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of April, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 27/04/2026
8 Cr. M.P. No.1090 of 2026
