2025:JHHC:21204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 404 of 2022 ------ 1. Md. Sirajuddin @ Sirajuddin @ Md. Serajuddin Ansari, son of Md. Khatir Ansari 2. Upendra Kumar son of Vidya Bishal Shastri 3. Jitendra Kumar Verma @ Jitendar Verma son of Utim Sonar 4. Prabir Ranjan Sengupta son of Saraj Ranjan Sengupta All residents of Area No.III, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Mahto, son of Gokhul Mahto, resident of Village Sonardih, P.O. Sonardih, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate ------ Order No.10 Dated : 31.07.2025 The explanation submitted by the concerned Judicial Officer in compliance to the order dated 15th July, 2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is accepted as satisfactory and the matter is dropped. Instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed in C.P. Case No.3543 of 2015 by which discharge petition of the petitioners has been rejected. 2. Petitioners are the employees of BCCL and case of the complainant is that he was recorded Raiyat of Village Sonardih, which was illegally grabbed by BCCL by using force. Complainant sought information through RTI in this regard from BCCL. It is alleged that petitioners under a criminal conspiracy gave false information by way of a fabricated map in information sought under the provisions of RTI Act. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority under the RTI Act which was dismissed. 2nd Appeal was preferred before the Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi, but the accused persons persisted and furnished concocted map. 3. After enquiry was conducted, process was issued and three witnesses were examined before charge. 4. Gravamen of the allegation is that a false map and wrong information 2025:JHHC:21204 was given to the complainant. 5. The impugned order is assailed on three counts. Firstly, the petitioners were officers in a Public Sector Undertaking and they had no intention whatsoever to make any wrongful gain by submitting the information allegedly false before the Chief Information Commissioner. Secondly, the said map was not used as an evidence by the petitioners before a Court of law in support of any claim of right or to defend any liability. It has not been tested in a Court of law to hold that map was factually incorrect. Secondly, it is argued that in view of specific bar under Section 215 of the B.N.S.S./Section 195 of the Cr.P.C, a private complaint is not maintainable for the offence alleged. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find merit in the submission on behalf of petitioners that a private complaint will not be maintainable that too, when the said map has not ever been produced before any Court so that it can be said that the petitioners had knowingly used the false map to support the claim of the Company. Unless and until a document is used in a Court of law to assert a claim, and the same is tested and found to be false, offence of perjury will not be made out. In cases, where such offence is made out and it is found that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate a prosecution of perjury, the Court concerned may initiate prosecution. 8. Here, the authenticity of map furnished under the provisions of RTI Act has not been produced or tested in a Court of law, therefore a prima facie case of perjury is not made out. Private complaint will not be maintainable. The impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. Criminal Revision is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit