Jharkhand High Court
Shivdani Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
(2025:JHHC:21758)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
Shivdani Prasad Sinha, aged about 74 years, son of Late Jang Bahadur
Singh, resident of Village Baruani, P.O. Baruani, P.S. Bhadour, District-
Patna, Bihar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shyam Babu Arya, S/o Late Kashinath Arya, R/o 634, Sector 3E, P.O. &
P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro ... Opposite Parties
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
1. Premchandra Singh @ Prem Chand Singh, aged about 71 years, son of
Birja Singh, resident of Plot No.746, Bari Cooperative, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
Sector 12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand
2. Jagdeo Prasad Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Falli Singh, resident
of Plot No.125, Bari Cooperative, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Sector 12, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shyam Babu Arya, S/o Late Kashinath Arya, R/o 634, Sector 3E, P.O. &
P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate (In both cases) Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.-06/24) Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.-362/24) For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate (In both cases)
-----
12/05.08.2025 In both the cases, common question of facts and laws are involved and in view of that, both these petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha and Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State in respective cases and Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-informant in both cases.
3. In Criminal Revision No.06 of 2024, the prayer is made for setting- aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief -1- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.136/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 registered under Section 341/ 323/ 504/ 506/ 406/ 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in that Court. In Criminal Revision No.362 of 2024, the prayer is made for setting-aside the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.375/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 registered under Section 341/323/504/506/406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in that Court.
Factual Matrix:
4. An FIR bearing Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No. 83/2018 was registered against the office-bearers of the society and also against the advisor and the allottee and purchaser of the Plot earlier allotted to the informant namely Shyam Babu Arya, who has lodged a written complaint dated 17.09.2018 stating therein that he was a member of the Bari Co-operative Society and had been allotted 10 decimals of land bearing Plot No.473 vide Lease Deed dated 12.10.1987and was also handed over the Plot on which he had constructed boundary wall by earth and soil, however due to ill health, the informant was not able to start construction in the said plot. It was further alleged that on 01.08.2018, the informant visited the office of Bari Co-
operative society to pay the due amount, however, was given a vague reply by the employees and, thereafter, he had again visited the office on 04.08.2018 and was not given proper response and was abused by the employee. It was also alleged that on 07.08.2018, the informant came to know that the office bearers and the legal advisor had conspired and allotted the plot of the informant to one Musafir Thakur and has also executed a Lease -2- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) Deed dated 03.08.2018 with the new allottee and when he had contacted the office bearer, they had assured that they would cancel the allotment in favour of Musafir Thakur. It was further alleged that on 29.08.2018, the informant was abused and threatened of dire consequence by the office bearers of the society and, hence, he had lodged the instant FIR against the fraudulent cancellation of the lease.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:
5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submits that in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2024, the petitioner is the Secretary of Bari Co-operative Society and the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.362 of 2024 are the President and Vice President respectively of the said Society. He submits that the said Co-operative Society is a registered body under the Cooperative Society Act, 1935 and is being run and managed as per its bye- laws. The office bearers of the Society are elected members and it has been the collective decision of the General Body to cancel the allotment of the allottee, who have defaulted and not constructed their houses as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. He then elaborates his argument by submitting that Plot No.473 was allotted to the informant-opposite party no.2, namely, Sri Shyam Babu Arya through agreement for lease dated 12.10.1987 on certain terms and conditions which at Clause 9 stipulated that the allottee shall complete the construction of at least half of the prescribed plinth area within five years from the date of delivery, however, the concerned allottee had never started the construction and had even defaulted in making payments. He further submits that the allottees were provided sufficient opportunity to construct the house and pay the amount to the society, -3- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) however, the allottees had failed to perform their obligation under the agreement and taking into account the safe guard to the plot and the violation of the terms and conditions of allotment, a collective decision was taken by the General Body on 26.03.2012 to cancel the agreement of such members who had not commenced construction. He also submits that during 2012-13, the present office bearers were not in the helm of affairs to run and manage the said Co-operative Society and, therefore, the collective decision of the predecessor in relation to cancellation of the Plot of the allottee, who have not commenced the construction, has only been enforced by the present elected body. He draws attention of the Court to Clause 9 of the agreement and submits that the condition is made there that within five years of delivery of possession, at least 50% of the plinth area is required to be constructed. He further draws attention of the Court to Clause 15 of the said agreement and submits that the provision is made therein that after reasonable opportunity to show-cause, registration can be cancelled if Clause 9 is not complied with. He further submits that Annexure-3 is the Minutes of the Meeting dated 26.03.2012, wherein, the decision has been taken to cancel the agreement of the persons, who have not started the work. By way of inviting attention of the Court to Annexure-6 Series, he submits that notices have also been issued to the informant and paper publication was also made and, thereafter, registered deed of cancellation was executed, contained in Annexure-8 and, thereafter, the amount received from the informant was also returned back. To buttress this argument, he referred receipt of postal endorsement, which has been brought on record at page 63 of the petition. In these backgrounds, he submits that many opportunities have been -4- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) provided to the allottees, however, they remained silent and, thereafter, the Executive Committee took the decision to cancel the membership and lease deed of two plots on 20.07.2017 including that of the informant, which was approved by the General Body vide Resolution No.7 of AGM dated 20.07.2017. He submits that the decision to cancel the allotment has been the collective decision of the General Body duly approved in the A.G.M. and in view of that, no criminality is made out and if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and for that, criminal case has been instituted. He submits that even after a lapse of 31 years, no construction was started and in view of that, all these things have happened. He also submits that the petitioners herein have filed the discharge petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Court, which was rejected. By way of drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-10, which is the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.758 of 2023 with Criminal Revision No.760 of 2023, dated 11.12.2023 and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has interfered with the case of two of the accused persons who were said to be allottees and advisor of the said Society and allowed those criminal revision applications and they have also been discharged. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set-aside and the petitioners may kindly be discharged.
Arguments on behalf of the State:
6. Learned counsel for the State in both the cases jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned orders. They further submit that there is allegation of assault and in view of that, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. They also submit that -5- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) both the petitions are fit to be dismissed.
Argument on behalf of opposite party no.2-informant:
7. Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 in both the cases vehemently opposed the prayer made in the criminal revision petitions and submit that notice has not been served upon the informant and the paper publication was also not made in a popular local daily newspaper and in view of that, all actions of the petitioners are vitiated. He submits that criminality is made out. He submits that the police have also submitted charge-sheet and other cases have also been filed against the petitioners and in view of that, this Court may not discharge the petitioners herein. He submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned orders. On these grounds, he submits that these petitions may kindly be dismissed.
Analysis:
8. It is an admitted position that the agreement was entered between the said Co-operative Society and the informant on 12.10.1987. Clause 9 of the agreement speaks as under:
"9. The Second Party shall complete the construction of at least half of the minimum prescribed plinth area in the ground floor within five years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot by the First Party according to such plans and specification as may be approved by the First Party and/or a Local Authority, if there be any, in accordance with and subject to the provision of such Building Bye-laws as may be prescribed by the First Party and/or all such enactments, rules and bye-laws as may be enforced by a Local Authority for the time being."
9. Clause 15 of the agreement stipulates as under:
"15. The First Party shall have right to re-enter and resume possession of the plot, including the structures thereon after paying compensation of the prevailing prices in case of breach of any of the provisions of the deed or on surrender by the allottee, by serving six months notice from the either side in writing provided the First Party before taking -6- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) any action under this clause must give reasonable opportunity to show cause."
10. By reading of the above two clauses simultaneously, it is crystal clear that the conditions are made to remain in possession with regard to the allotted plot and it has not been denied in course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 that the construction was required to be started within five years of allotment. Clause 9 of the agreement clearly speaks that if within five years of allotment, 50% of the plinth area in the ground floor is not completed, in light of Clause 15 the agreement can be cancelled.
11. It is further admitted position that in the Annual General Meeting, the decision was taken to cancel the allotment of those allottees, who have not started the construction. It is averred in these criminal revision petitions that after 31 years of allotment, the work was not started and that is also admitted in the FIR. It is further not denied in the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 and State that the predecessors of the present petitioners have taken decision pursuant to General Body meeting to cancel the allotment and at that time, the petitioners were not the office bearers of the said Co-operative Society.
12. In these backgrounds, the Court has to consider whether a criminal case under the aforesaid sections can sustain against the petitioners or not. In light of the agreement and clauses, it is crystal clear that if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and if the informant was aggrieved with the said decision, civil remedy was required to be taken, whereas, colour of criminal case has been made.
13. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for -7- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) wrongful restraint. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for criminal breach of trust. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment of criminal conspiracy. The facts as stated herein above clearly stipulate that the ingredients of the above sections are not made out against the petitioners. The agreement has been cancelled by way of registered deed of cancellation and, thus, the ingredient of voluntarily causing hurt is not there. The intention to insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace is also not made out as notice and paper publication are there. Even the amount has been returned back to the informant and in view of that, the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also not made out against the petitioners. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is further not attracted.
14. Further, the documents on record further suggests that the report of 3 Men Committee is also there and the Committee has submitted the report to the effect that there are certain discrepancies in cancellation of the agreement, however, all the documents as has been discussed herein above are already part of the charge-sheet and in view of that, the cases of the petitioners are further strengthened.
15. In light of the above discussions, the question remains as to whether the High Court while exercising its power under the revisional jurisdiction is -8- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) competent to pass appropriate order of discharge or not. The answer is in affirmative as in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the law or for the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The said power is meant to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10157 of 2019, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699, Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1069 and Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private Limited, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 443.
16. Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories of cases where the court may not proceed with the trial and may discharge the accused or pass such other orders as may be necessary keeping in view the facts of a given case. In a -9- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) case where upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force and there is a bar and there exists no ground to proceed against the accused, the court may discharge the accused.
17. Another well settled law is that revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories of discharge. Even framing of charge is a much- advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. Normally, it is not required to be interfered by the revisional court.
18. It is well known that revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. No doubt, it may subject to jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
19. Normally a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power if required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be -10- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758) a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not specifically use the expression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice ", the jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.P.C is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
21. Coming to the facts of the present case, as has been discussed herein above, it transpires that all the documents are part of the charge-sheet, which clearly stipulate that if any dispute is there i.e. civil in nature and for that, criminal proceeding has been initiated and, as such, the Court finds that the interference by this Court is required.
22. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, these criminal revision petitions succeed and, accordingly, the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.136/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 and the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.375/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 are, hereby, set-aside. The petitioners herein are, hereby, discharged from the charged labelled against them. -11-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:21758)
23. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are allowed in above terms and disposed of.
24. Pending petition, if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ A.F.R. -12- Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024