PRAMILA DEVI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1695 : 2025 INSC 560

                          Pramila Devi & Ors.
                           A1: Pramila Devi
                         A2: Satyanarain Sahu
                          A3: Krishna Kumar
                                   v.
                     The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
                      R1: The State of Jharkhand
                            R2: Jyoti Beck
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2551 of 2024)
                                 23 April 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against
       one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017.
       Whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking
       cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance;
       whether the FIR (u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860
       and s.3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
       (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) itself was instituted with mala
       fide intention and was liable to be quashed.

                                   Headnotes†
       Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
       of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(iv) – Respondent no.2 filed
       complaint against one V and appellants which culminated
       into FIR u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and s.3(1)(iv) of
       the SC/ST Act – The Additional Judicial Commissioner took
       cognizance against one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in
       SC/ST Case No.08/2017 – The High Court set aside the
       cognizance order and remitted the matter to the Additional
       Judicial Commissioner to pass order afresh as in the
       cognizance order, prima facie material against the appellants
       had not been disclosed – Correctness:
       Held: Approach of the High Court was erroneous – Perusal of
       the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the

* Author
1696                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary
    and case record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima
    facie case made out u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and s.3
    (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants –
    Further, this Court finds the approach of the Additional Judicial
    Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it
    firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion
    as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter
    went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to
    have committed the offence – Accordingly, the process moves to
    the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the case
    may be, against such persons – In the instant case, the Additional
    Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while recording a
    finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record,
    a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including
    the appellants – On an overall circumspection of the facts and
    circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance dated
    13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be
    interfered with by the High Court. [Paras 15, 16, 21]

    Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 406 and 420 – Scheduled Castes
    and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
    1989 – s.3(1)(iv) – Whether the FIR (u/ss.498A, 406 and 420 of
    the Penal Code, 1860 and s.3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes
    and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989)
    itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable
    to be quashed:
    Held: Perusal of the entire gamut of the pleadings of the appellants
    does not disclose any categorical statement to the effect that during
    investigation by the police, no evidence has emerged to warrant
    taking of cognizance, much less against the appellants – The only
    averment which has been made is that the Trial Court had not
    recorded the prima facie material against the appellants because
    it does not exist – This is too simplistic an argument and does not
    shift the burden from the appellants of taking a categorical stand
    that no material whatsoever for taking cognizance is available in
    the police papers/case diary against the appellants – Be it noted,
    the State has argued that sufficient material warranting cognizance
    has been unearthed during the course of investigation – Also,
    chargesheet mentions that on the basis of investigation, site
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          1697

          Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     inspection and statements of the complainant, the police has found
     the allegations true against all the accused including appellants.
     [Paras 19, 20]

                             Case Law Cited
     Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012)
     5 SCC 424; Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [2015] 1 SCR 1069 :
     (2015) 3 SCC 424 – relied on.
     Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [2015] 4 SCR
     841 : (2015) 12 SCC 420; State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed
     Hasanfatta, [2019] 1 SCR 1104 : (2019) 20 SCC 539; Rakhi
     Mishra v. State of Bihar (2017) 16 SCC 772 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
     Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

                            List of Keywords
     Section 3(1)(iv) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
     (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Cognizance; Case diary;
     Case record; Prima Facie case; Investigation; Sufficient material
     warranting cognizance; Chargesheet; Site inspection; Statements
     of the complainant.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2551 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2022 of the High Court
     of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRMP No. 235 of 2017

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Arup Banerjee, Priyanshu Raj, Shiv Pratap Singh, Amitabh Poddar,
     Rajiv Agnihotri, Ms. Shravya Arora.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh,
     Dipankar Singh, Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Sureshan P.
1698                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

     The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against
     the Final Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2022 (hereinafter referred
     to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) [2022:JHHC:9512] in Criminal
     Miscellaneous Petition No.235 of 2017 passed by the High Court
     of Jharkhand at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’)
     by which the High Court set aside the cognizance Order dated
     13.06.2019 passed in connection with SC/ST Case No.08 of 2017
     arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.385 of 2016, by the learned
     Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to
     as the ‘Additional Judicial Commissioner’) and remitted the matter
     for passing order afresh.

     BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2.   Respondent No.2 (Informant) claims to be the second wife of one
     Vishnu Sahu (Deceased). Appellant No.1 is the first wife of Late
     Vishnu Sahu, and Appellants No.2 and 3 are their children. It was
     alleged that the deceased posing himself as unmarried about 25-30
     years ago befriended Respondent No.2 and married her in 1990 at
     Jagannath Temple under Hindu customs and traditions and lived
     peacefully for more than 26 years. From their marriage (Vishnu Sahu
     and Respondent No.2), three children were born, namely Reshma
     Kumari, Rupa Kumari, and Vishal Kumar. It was pleaded that after
     26 years, Respondent No.2 filed a written complaint against Vishnu
     Sahu and the Appellants which culminated into First Information
     Report No.385/2016 dated 27.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as
     the ‘FIR’) under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
     Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)
     (iv) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
     of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).
3.   The allegations made in the FIR are that Vishnu Sahu posing
     himself to be unmarried, performed marriage with Respondent No.2
     in 1990, and two daughters and a son were born to them from the
     said wedlock. By taking a loan in her name from a bank and at her
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       1699

          Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     expense, a pakka house was constructed upon the land purchased
     by her father in her name, and she was living in the said house with
     her family. She also alleged that Vishnu Sahu along with the first wife
     and the children, born from wedlock of Vishnu Sahu and his first wife
     (Appellant No.1) started to harass and assault her and ultimately,
     in the year 2013, she and her children were ousted by them from
     the said house. It is further alleged that she has been deprived of
     her land and house, that she is facing hardship, her daughters are
     of marriageable age and that she was humiliated and abused by
     Vishnu Sahu, his first wife (Appellant No.1) and their children in the
     name of Adivasi Kol. Bhurung, etc.
4.   Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants moved Anticipatory Bail Petition
     No.1799 of 2016 before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1
     at Ranchi, who on 19.12.2016 passed an Order directing that no
     coercive steps shall be taken against them and adjourned the matter
     with direction to put up on 20.01.2017. On 20.01.2017, an Order was
     passed rejecting the application for anticipatory bail as the allegation
     illustrates commission of offence(s) under the SC/ST Act.
5.   The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against Vishnu
     Sahu and Appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017.
     Though before the High Court, the Appellants had initially sought
     quashing of the FIR, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.235/2017
     the prayer was later amended by filing an Interlocutory Application
     challenging the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019. The High
     Court in the Impugned Judgment, instead of going into the question
     of whether the FIR itself was fit to be quashed, focused only on the
     cognizance-taking Order dated 13.06.2019. Even before this Court,
     the Appellants challenged the Impugned Judgment to the extent the
     matter was remanded to pass order afresh after disclosure of the
     prima facie material against the Appellants. No prayer was pressed
     to quash FIR No.385/2016. In such view, we would proceed only with
     regard to the challenge whether the High Court by the Impugned
     Judgment ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for
     disclosure of the prima facie material against the Appellants.
6.   The High Court, by way of the Impugned Judgment, set aside the
     cognizance Order and remitted the matter to the Additional Judicial
     Commissioner to pass order afresh as in the cognizance Order,
     prima facie material against the Appellants had not been disclosed.
1700                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     SUBMISSIONS BY APPELLANTS:
7.   Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that Respondent No.2
     is habituated to lodging false cases, as earlier also she had lodged
     Case No.311/2014 against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323,
     506 and 498A of the IPC, presently pending adjudication, wherein
     the Appellants have been granted bail on 30.09.2014.
8.   Learned counsel contended that in the present FIR dated 27.11.2016,
     the allegations are totally baseless, since they have come nearly
     26 years after the alleged marriage. It was further submitted that
     Respondent No.2’s entire case is based on the allegation that the
     land on which the house is built had been purchased by her father
     in Village Argora bearing Khata No.199, Plot No.1734, which makes
     it an entirely civil dispute that has been masked as a criminal case
     under the provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
9.   Learned counsel for the Appellants summed up his arguments
     submitting that despite Civil Suit No.1465/2014 having been filed by
     Vishnu Sahu with regard to purchase of land in Village Argora bearing
     Khata No.199, Plot No.1734, these criminal cases (present FIR and
     Case No.311/2014) are foisted by Respondent No.2 to harass the
     Appellants. It was urged that the High Court ought to have quashed
     the entire criminal proceedings on the grounds that there was no
     prima facie case, in the absence of any evidence being placed before
     the Trial Court, but instead, the Appellants are being forced to revisit
     proceedings that would lead to further harassment. It was prayed
     that the appeal be allowed and the decision to remit the matter to the
     Additional Judicial Commissioner for a fresh decision be set aside.

     SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE:
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-State prayed for dismissal
    of the appeal as prima facie, a case was made out under the IPC
    and the SC/ST Act against the Appellants and the High Court has
    remitted the case back to the Additional Judicial Commissioner, only
    for the limited purpose of disclosing the prima facie material. It was
    urged that the Impugned Judgment did not require interference.

     SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT NO.2-INFORMANT:
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that Vishnu Sahu
    constructed the house on the property belonging to her by taking
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1701

          Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     loan in her name and in 2013, she was forcibly evicted from the
     house by Vishnu Sahu and the Appellants, and this act by the
     Appellants discloses the commission of offence(s) under the SC/
     ST Act.
12. Learned counsel contended that Chargesheet No.80/2019 dated
    30.04.2019 had been filed against the Appellants under Sections
    498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act.
    Subsequently, on 13.06.2019, the Additional Judicial Commissioner
    took cognizance of the above-mentioned offences. It was submitted
    that the statements of the prosecution witness(es), which are not on
    record before this Court, clearly establish the commission of offence(s)
    by the Appellants. It was advanced that the appeal deserved dismissal.

     ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
13. We have considered the matter in its entirety. Two basic issues arise
    for consideration.
14. Firstly, whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking
    cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance?
    Secondly, whether the FIR itself was instituted with mala fide intention
    and was liable to be quashed?
15. Coming to the first issue, we have no hesitation to record that the
    approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. Perusal of the Order
    taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional
    Judicial Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case record’
    have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out
    under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(g)
    of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants. Further,
    we find the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct
    inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the
    materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has
    been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the
    persons who appeared to have committed the offence. Accordingly,
    the process moves to the next stage; of issuance of summons or
    warrant, as the case may be, against such persons.
16. In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner
    has taken cognizance while recording a finding that - from a perusal
    of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out
    against the accused, including the Appellants. In Bhushan Kumar v
1702                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order
    of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because
    it was not a reasoned order; relevant paragraphs being as under:
         ‘14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that
         the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code
         requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is
         imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of
         the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations
         made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.
         15. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC
         722: 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] the following passage will be
         apposite in this context: (SCC p. 726, para 12)
              “12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial
              court should write an order showing the reasons
              for framing a charge, why should the already
              burdened trial courts be further burdened with
              such an extra work. The time has reached to
              adopt all possible measures to expedite the
              court procedures and to chalk out measures to
              avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays.
              If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at
              different stages merely because the counsel
              would address arguments at all stages, the snail-
              paced progress of proceedings in trial courts
              would further be slowed down. We are coming
              across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and
              Sessions Judges running into several pages.
              We can appreciate if such a detailed order has
              been passed for culminating the proceedings
              before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write
              detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing
              process, remanding the accused to custody,
              framing of charges, passing over to next stages
              in the trial.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

         16. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
         [(1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 SCC (Cri) 507] this Court
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         1703

          Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


           held that it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter
           into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of
           the case. It was further held that in deciding whether a
           process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into
           consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the
           complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in
           support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given
           an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion
           has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held
           that: (SCC p. 741, para 5)
                “5. … Once the Magistrate has exercised his
                discretion it is not for the High Court, or even
                this Court, to substitute its own discretion for
                that of the Magistrate or to examine the case
                on merits with a view to find out whether or not
                the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would
                ultimately end in conviction of the accused.”
           17. In Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal
           Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 SCC (Cri) 788] this
           Court, in para 9, held as under: (SCC pp. 145-46)
                “9. In determining the question whether any
                process is to be issued or not, what the
                Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there
                is sufficient ground for proceeding and not
                whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
                Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting
                the conviction, can be determined only at the
                trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage
                of issuing the process to the accused, the
                Magistrate is not required to record reasons.
                This question was considered recently in U.P.
                Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd.
                [(2000) 3 SCC 745] and after noticing the law
                laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.
                [(2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] it was
                held as follows: (U.P. Pollution case [(2000) 3
                SCC 745], SCC p. 749, para 6)
1704                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                    ‘6. The legislature has stressed the
                    need to record reasons in certain
                    situations such as dismissal of a
                    complaint without issuing process.
                    There is no such legal requirement
                    imposed on a Magistrate for passing
                    detailed order while issuing summons.
                    The process issued to the accused
                    cannot be quashed merely on the
                    ground that the Magistrate had not
                    passed a speaking order.’”
          18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar
          Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this
          Court, in para 23, held as under: (SCC p. 154)
               “23. It is a settled legal position that at the
               stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is
               mainly concerned with the allegations made
               in the complaint or the evidence led in support
               of the same and he is only to be prima facie
               satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds
               for proceeding against the accused.”
          19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed
          by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the
          ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned
          order.’
                                               (emphasis supplied)

17. The view in Bhushan Kumar (supra) was reiterated in Mehmood
    Ul Rehman v Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 and
    State of Gujarat v Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC
    539. This Court in Rakhi Mishra v State of Bihar, (2017) 16 SCC
    772 restated the settled proposition of law enunciated in Sonu Gupta
    v Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424, as under:
          ‘4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
          the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the
          High Court erred in allowing the application filed by
          Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and quashing
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            1705

          Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


           the criminal proceedings against them. A perusal of the
           FIR would clearly show that the appellant alleged cruelty
           against Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. This Court
           in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [Sonu Gupta v. Deepak
           Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265] held
           as follows: (SCC p. 429, para 8)
                “8. … At the stage of cognizance and summoning
                the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
                mind only with a view to take cognizance of the
                offence … to find out whether a prima facie case
                has been made out for summoning the accused
                persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate
                is not required to consider the defence version
                or materials or arguments nor is he required to
                evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence
                of the complainant, because the Magistrate
                must not undertake the exercise to find out at
                this stage whether the materials would lead to
                conviction or not.”
           5. The order passed by the trial court taking cognizance
           against R-2 and R-4 to R-9 is in conformity with the law
           laid down in the above judgment. It is settled law that the
           power under Section 482 CrPC is exercised by the High
           Court only in exceptional circumstances only when a prima
           facie case is not made out against the accused. The test
           applied by this Court for interference at the initial stage of
           a prosecution is whether the uncontroverted allegations
           prima facie establish a case.’
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

18. Coming to the second point which the Appellants canvassed before
    this Court viz. the background of lodging of the FIR to impress that
    the same is mala fide, an afterthought and at best, a civil dispute
    being tried to be settled through criminal proceedings by way of
    arm-twisting. On this point, need for a detailed discussion is obviated
    in view of our answer on the first point supra and the paragraphs infra.
19. Perusal of the entire gamut of the pleadings of the Appellants does
    not disclose any categorical statement to the effect that during
1706                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     investigation by the police, no evidence has emerged to warrant
     taking of cognizance, much less against the Appellants. The only
     averment which has been made is that the Trial Court had not
     recorded the prima facie material against the Appellants because it
     does not exist. This is too simplistic an argument and does not shift
     the burden from the Appellants of taking a categorical stand that no
     material whatsoever for taking cognizance is available in the police
     papers/case diary against the Appellants. Be it noted, the State
     has argued that sufficient material warranting cognizance has been
     unearthed during the course of investigation.
20. Here, the Court would pause to delve on what is the scope of the
    exercise of application of mind on the police papers/case diary for
    deciding as to whether to take cognizance or not - it has only to be
    seen whether there is material forthcoming to indicate commission
    of the offence(s) alleged. The concerned Court is not empowered
    to go into the veracity of the material at that time. That is why, the
    law provides for a trial where it is open to both the parties i.e., the
    prosecution as well as the defence to lead evidence(s) either to prove
    the materials which have come against the accused or to disprove
    such findings. This Court vide Order dated 13.09.2024 directed the
    Appellants to file a translated copy of the chargesheet, as the State
    filed the chargesheet in Hindi along with an application seeking
    exemption from filing official translation (I.A. No.198073/2024). As this
    Court [Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] is
    well-conversant with Hindi, the language in which the chargesheet is
    and which has been brought on record, we have examined the same.
    However, the Appellants failed to comply with the specific direction
    issued on 13.09.2024. Be that as it may, we find that chargesheet
    mentions that on the basis of investigation, site inspection and
    statements of the complainant, the police has found the allegations
    true against all the accused including appellants.
21. For reasons aforesaid and on an overall circumspection of the facts
    and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel
    for the parties, we find that the Order taking cognizance dated
    13.06.2019, being in accordance with law, was not required to be
    interfered with by the High Court.
22. Though no cross-appeal against the Impugned Judgment has been
    filed by Respondent No.2, yet to render complete justice as also
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                    1707

             Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     set right the error committed by the High Court, on the legal issue
     of requirement of recording detailed grounds/reasons for taking
     cognizance, the Impugned Judgment is set aside in toto.
23. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Appellants
    shall appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, where the
    matter is pending, on the next date fixed in the case, whereupon the
    case shall proceed in accordance with law. Registry to communicate
    this Judgment to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi forthwith through
    the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court.
24. We would add that the Appellants shall have full liberty of putting
    forth their case before the Court concerned at the appropriate stage
    viz. framing of charge(s) and can press for discharge, inter alia, by
    pointing out that the investigation has not come up with any material
    to warrant trial. We further clarify that we have not expressed any
    opinion on the merits of the matter. Our observations are only for
    the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. All contentions in law
    and fact are reserved to the prosecution and the defence.
25. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan