JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though the opposite party No.2 has put her appearance through an Advocate, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. 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 the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ghatsila (Maubhandar OP) P.S. Case No.47 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.25 of 2021 including the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code even though the charge sheet was submitted mentioning therein that the only offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is crystal clear from the order dated 08.01.2021 that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila was under the erroneous impression that in the charge sheet, it has been mentioned that the same has been submitted in respect of the offences punishable under Section 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner; though in fact, the same was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code as the said charge sheet was not submitted in respect of the said offence. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 08.01.2021 is not sustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, 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 , (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 framed 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 charge-sheet.” Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically laid down the law that 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, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge sheet, cannot fill up the lacuna, as the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance and 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 and the only remedy available for the prosecution is 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 framed can be allowed to be framed. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, perusal of the record reveals that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code only. Hence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has committed a grave error by mentioning in the order dated 08.01.2021 that the charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Since the charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, so, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has committed a grave illegality by adding Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of taking cognizance. 8. Since the charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, so, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has committed a grave illegality by adding Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of taking cognizance. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the said order dated 08.01.2021 is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ghatsila (Maubhandar OP) P.S. Case No.47 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.25 of 2021 including the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ghatsila (Maubhandar OP) P.S. Case No.47 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.25 of 2021 including the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is remanded to the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 12. In view of withdrawal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A.No.4560 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.