SUMAN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2096 of 2023
------
1. Suman Kumar, aged about 29 years, Son of Subodh Singh,
Resident of Chandwara, P.O. + P.S.- Kharsari, District-Jamui
(Bihar).
2. Danish Iqubal @ Danish Iqbal, aged about 31 years, Son of Kalim
Akhtar Khan, Resident of Falah Colony, Road No. 5, P.O.-
Pugmil, P.S. and District- Hazaribagh.
3. Surendra Ram, aged about 40 years, Son of Bishundev Ram,
Resident of Village- Dildili, P.O.- Kajrukhurd, P.S. Pandu,
District- Palamau.
4. Sitaram Ravidas, aged about 48 years, Son of Mukund Ravidas,
Resident of Village + P.O.- Lalpur, P.S.- Lakarkhawari, District-
Dhanbad.
… Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sweety Chaurasiya @ Sweety Chourasia, w/o Dilip Kumar
Chaurasia @ Dilip Prasad Chourasia, resident of Kumhar Patti,

near Shani Mandir, P.S.- Dhansar, P.O. & District- Dhanbad.
…
Opposite Parties.
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate.
Mr. Sumitra Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate.
Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate.
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- I.A. No.12134 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this
interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
Since this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, this
interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
1 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


Cr.M.P. No.2096 of 2023
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer
to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
st
18.05.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Dhanbad in C.P.
Case No. 729 of 2022 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class has found prima facie case for the offences punishable
under Section 323, 341, 365, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed
the summoning orders against the petitioners.
3. The brief fact of the case is that opposite party no.2-complainant
filed complaint being C.P. Case No. 729 of 2022 in the Court of learned
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Dhanbad. The learned Judicial Magistrate
was of the opinion that since the occurrence took place during the course
of discharge of official duties of the petitioners; who are the police
personnel hence, sanction for prosecution is required to take cognizance
of the offences against them. Hence, he directed the complainant to make
available the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent
authority. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition that no sanction of
prosecution is required as one of the offences involved is punishable
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated
05.09.2022 in Complaint Case No. 729 of 2022, the learned Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class Dhanbad rejected the said petition after holding that
there is no evidence in the record to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code; in absence of any allegation
2 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


of outraging modesty or kidnapping and only there is evidence of
beating. Hence, there is necessity for sanction for prosecution, for the
purpose of taking cognizance.
4.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 05.09.2022 passed in
Complaint Case No. 729 of 2022, the opposite party no.2 herein, who was
the complainant of the said complaint case, filed Criminal Revision No.
174 of 2022. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, III, Dhanbad being
oblivious of the notification dated 16.05.1980 issued by the State of the
Bihar which extends the protection of Section 197 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to all the members of Police Force including both the
Officers and men, was of the view; on the basis of a judgment of the
Hon’ble Madras High Court that since for the removal of the constable,
head-constable and inspector of the police, no prior sanction order of the
State Government is required and they can be removed by the order of
Inspector General of Police, so no sanction for prosecution is required for
the purpose of taking cognizance against them; as the petitioners herein
are either Officer-In-Charge, Sub-Inspector of Police, Constable and
Havildar and set aside the said order dated 05.09.2022 passed in
Complaint Case No. 729 of 2022 and directed to pass a fresh order for
issuance of the process.
5. Consequent upon the said order being passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, III, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 174 of
st
2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Dhanbad passed order
dated 18.05.2023 in C.P. Case No. 729 of 2022 finding prima facie case and
summoning the petitioners.
3 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Om Prakash & Others versus State of Jharkhand through the
Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi 1 & Another with allied cases
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72 para 9 of which reads as under:-
“9. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it is
necessary to state one admitted fact which leads us to
conclude that the reason given by the High Court for not
quashing proceedings against appellant Om Prakash and
others, namely, that no notification under Section 197(3) of
the Code was produced by them protecting them from
prosecution in respect of any offence alleged to have been
committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
their official duties, is incorrect. We have been shown a
copy of the Notification dated 16-5-1980 issued by the
State of Bihar which extends the protection of sub-section
(2) of Section 197 of the Code to all the members of the
police force as it includes both officers and men. Mr
Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant has
not disputed this position. It is, therefore, not necessary to
dilate further on this issue.” (Emphasis supplied)

that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken
cognizance of the notification dated 16.05.1980 issued by the State of
Bihar; which extends the protection of Section 197 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to all the members of Police Force including both the
officers and men. So, it is submitted that order dated 28.02.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision
174 of 2022 is not sustainable in law; as the said order has been passed
without taking into consideration, the said notification dated 16.05.1980
and consequently, the subsequent order dated 18.05.2023 passed in C.P.
Case No. 729 of 2022 is also not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same be
quashed and set aside. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel
4 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


for the petitioners that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the order
dated 05.09.2022 passed in C.P. Case No. 729 of 2022. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
7.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 fairly submits that it appears that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad was ignorant about the
notification dated 16.05.1980 and because of that the order was passed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the
considered view that in view of the notification dated 16.05.1980 issued by
the State of Bihar which extends the protection of Section 197(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to all the members of the police force
including officers and men; which is also applicable to the officers and
men of police in the state of Jharkhand also, in view of the provisions of
the Bihar Reorganisation Act. Therefore this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2022
whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad has set aside
st
the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1
Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 729 of 2022 on the ground that the
petitioners being either Officer-In-Charge or Sub-Inspector or Constable
or Havildar are removable from service by the order of Inspector General
of Police and not by the State Government, is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.
174 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023 is quashed and set aside.
5 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023





2026:JHHC:26483
[ ]


9. As the order dated 18.05.2023 passed in C.P. Case No. 729 of 2022
and all the subsequent orders were passed basing upon the order dated
28.02.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2022; consequent upon
setting aside of the said order dated 28.02.2023, all the order passed
st
thereafter by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Dhanbad in C.P.
Case No. 729 of 2022 from 18.05.2023 onwards are also quashed and set
aside.
st
10. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Dhanbad is directed to
proceed with the case from the order dated 05.09.2022 onwards in the said
Complaint Case No. 729 of 2022.
11. allowed
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to the
aforesaid extent only.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
nd
Dated the 02 September, 2026
AFR/ Amar

Uploaded on- 07/09/2026

6 Cr. M.P. No.2096 of 2023