Jharkhand High Court
Balkishun Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:20480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Criminal) No.282 of 2025
------
Balkishun Ram, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Ram. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka.
4. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar,
Deoghar.
5. Officer-In-Charge, Town Police Station, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar (Town), District Deoghar.
6. Dipak Kumar
7. Rohit Kumar
8. Mukesh Kumar
9. Jitendar Verma
10. Rajendra Ram
11. Jhuma Devi
12. Renu Devi
13. Risi Kumar
14. Banti Kumar
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
——
05/ 24.07.2025
The petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs:-
A. “The respondents be given direction to add the
Section 307, 379, 385, 342, 148 of the I.P.C.
in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case
No.491/2023. Now this case is pending before
the Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar.
B. That respondent no.5 I.O. of this case add the
three member medical board report in the case
diary.
C. The respondent given to direction the follow-up
order of respondent no. 2 & 3 and compliance
the order of the respondent no. 2 & 3.”
2. Heard the parties.
3. After going through the materials on record, I find that
the main grievance of the petitioner is that Sections 307, 379, 385,
1
2025:JHHC:20480
342 and 148 IPC, should be added which was removed after
investigation.
4. The case of the petitioner is that after rejection of the
bail applications, the police has submitted final report wherein the
police found that the cases are punishable under the bailable
Sections only and the final report is only against five accused
persons. The petitioner now claims that all the aforesaid Sections
which were initially in the F.I.R. are attracted in this case but the
police with a malafide intention has removed the same making the
incident a less graver one. Thus, he prays that the aforesaid
Sections be added.
5. The finding of the police in the charge-sheet and
Sections mentioned therein are not binding upon the Court. The
Court at the time of taking cognizance should go through the entire
case diary and thereafter may come to a different conclusion also.
If the Court feels that some of the Sections which have not been
incorporated in the charge-sheet in respect of which the
cognizance needs to be taken, can take cognizance also under
those Sections, which are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. This
Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
cannot direct the Trial Court or the cognizance taking Court to take
cognizance in particular Section. Since the petitioner has got
alternative remedy, he should approach the Trial Court for
redressal of his grievance.
6. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain
this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to
approach the appropriate Forum.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this Criminal Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant.Cp-3
2