High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 JH CK 3765

Dhiraj Lulla & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Cr.M.P. No.2971 of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 431 words

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash/set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Drugs and Cosmetics Case No. 191 of 2010 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i)(vi) & 18(B) of the Drugs and Cosm. Control Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision of law of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is not penal provisions of law, hence, the same be quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

4.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State fairly submits that though in the complaint, it has categorically been mentioned that the complaint is filed alleging the commission of the offences for violation of the prohibition under Sections 18(a)(i)(vi) as well as 18(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the penal provision for which has been provided for in Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. So, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was expected to form an opinion as to whether cognizance for the offences alleged has been committed or not but certainly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi instead of doing that, has taken cognizance of the provisions which is the prohibition provisions and not under the connected penal provision of law.

5.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences under the provision which is not the penal provision of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Drugs and Cosmetics Case No. 191 of 2010 be quashed and set aside.

6.

Accordingly, the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Drugs and Cosmetics Case No. 191 of 2010, is quashed and set aside.

7.

The case is remitted back to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to pass an appropriate order in the matter of cognizance in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.