Jharkhand High Court
Qamrul Hoda @ Md. Subhan @ Md. Subahan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[ 2026:JHHC:8358]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 446 of 2024
Qamrul Hoda @ Md. Subhan @ Md. Subahan, , aged
about 59 years, son of Late Shams Tabrez, Resident of
H. No. 1, Shop Area, Masjid Road, Golmuri, P.O. and
P.S. -Golmuri, Town -Jamshedpur, Dist.- East
Singhbhum. ...... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arun Murmu, son of Late Loso @ Loso Mrumu,
resident of Q. No. 4/L-4, Road No. 6, Agrico, P.O.
Agrico, P.S. Sidgori, Town Jamshedpur, District -East
Singhbhum. ..... Respondents
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar , Adv.
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay , Addl. PP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Suggi Murmu, , Adv.
Md. Zubari Khan, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2023
passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) cases, Jamshedpur
in connection with SC/ST case no. 30 of 2023 arising out of
Golmuri P.S. case no. 160 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, the
learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jamshedpur has found
sufficient materials to proceed against the appellants for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 and 120B of IPC as well as under Sections 3 (1) (iv) (ix) (x)
(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and took cognizance of the said offences
though chargesheet was submitted against the appellant only for
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 446 of 2024
[ 2026:JHHC:8358]
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120B of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha
Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another
reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135, submit that therein in para 19, it
was observed that if the allegations in the complaint petition
which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC for
registration of the FIR, are vague and are not specific with respect
to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration
of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of
the offences alleged.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants next relying upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710 submit that therein in the facts of that case,
where the occurrence took place within four walls of the building,
it was observed that it cannot be said that such occurrence took
place within public view by relying upon its own judgment in the
case of Swaran Singh vs. State reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 and
further went on to hold that if there is any dispute in respect of
possession, is pending before the civil court, the same would not
disclose an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the
victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that
she belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It is next
submitted that allegations against the appellant are false and
learned Special Judge ought not have taken cognizance of the
offences in respect of which charge sheet was not submitted i.e.
the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It is further submitted that learned Special Judge
without application of judicial mind has taken cognizance of the
said offences. It is next submitted that informant has already filed
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 446 of 2024
[ 2026:JHHC:8358]
the Original Title Suit no. 23 of 2019 in respect of the land in
question, hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this
appeal be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2
vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that there is direct and
specific allegations against the appellant of committing forgery by
making false documents pertaining to ownership of the land
belonging to the respondent no. 2 and the said allegations was
found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case
and they have also committed the offence of cheating and in
criminal conspiracy of the co-accused persons have used the
forged documents as genuine, hence at this nascent stage, there is
no justifiable reason to quash the impugned order dated
28.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) cases,
Jamshedpur in connection with SC/ST case no. 30 of 2023 arising
out of Golmuri P.S. case no. 160 of 2019 and this appeal being
without any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through 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. 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 framed3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 446 of 2024
[ 2026:JHHC:8358]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
chargesheet.” (Emphasis supplied)wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
categorically laid down the laws that if an investigating authority
for any reason, whatsoever, has left all the offences to be included
in the charge sheet, on the basis of the FIR, basing upon which,
the investigation has been concluded, learned Magistrate before
whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance, which principle
is also applicable to learned Special Judge, who after submission
of the charge sheet, cannot fill the lacunae and the Magistrate or
the Special Judge in such a case, which is based on a police report,
cannot add or subtract any section of any offence, at the time of
taking cognizance, as the same would be permissible to the trial
court only at the time of framing of charge.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as the offences
punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are
concerned, the undisputed facts remain that the charge sheet
was not submitted in respect of those offences and even if it
appeared to the learned special judge that on the basis of
materials available in the record, offences punishable under the
penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also made out, certainly in
view of the principle of law settled in the case of State of Gujarat
vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra), learned Special Judge
ought not have taken cognizance of such offences but ought to
have waited for the stage of framing of charge and at that time, it
could have done so but having taken cognizance of the offences in
respect of which charge sheet has not been submitted by police,
this Court is of the considered view that the portion of the
impugned order in respect of taking cognizance in respect of the
penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 446 of 2024
[ 2026:JHHC:8358]
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to be specific under Sections 3
(1) (iv) (ix) (x) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable in law.
Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the
cognizance in respect of the said penal provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is not sustainable in law but so far as the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC
is concerned, as there is direct and specific allegation against the
appellant, of having been in criminal conspiracy with the co-
accused persons, has committed these offences and the allegations
were found to be true during the investigation of the case; there is
no illegality. Under such circumstances this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order so far as it relates to the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120B of IPC, do not suffer from any illegality, the same is
maintained.
8. In view of the discussions made above this appeal is allowed in
part. The portion of the impugned order by which cognizance in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (iv) (ix) (x) (xv)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside but the remaining portion of the
said order, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC is maintained.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent
only and the interim order, if any, passed earlier is vacated.
10. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 19th March, 2026
Smita /AFR
Uploaded on 28.03.2026
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 446 of 2024