( 2025:JHHC:25710) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2383 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2383 of 2022 ------ Rohit Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ajay Narayan Singh, age 38 years, resident of 5, Govind Nagar, Opposite 9 K.D. Flat Kadma, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. R. Shiva Rama Krishnan son of Late S. Ramchandran, resident of Gautam Apartment, Block-C, Flat No.4/7, Kadma, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in G.R. Case No.523 of 2019 arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No.180 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 403, 198, 408, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Cr. Revision No.116 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.523 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, ( 2025:JHHC:25710) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2383 of 2022 Jamshedpur whereby and whereby under the learned Sessions judge dismissed the Cr. Revision. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/O.P. No.2-informant filed Complaint Case No.1615 of 2018 alleging therein that he booked a flat to be purchased inter alia from the petitioner on making initial payment of Rs.50,000/- and went on making further payments against the total consideration amount on completion of construction of the flat. The petitioner handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant- informant. There is allegation that the petitioner has the intention to cheat the complainant-informant since the beginning and by suppressing the material facts that the said property had been mortgaged with Punjab National Bank, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with money by way of cheating and dishonestly misappropriated the money of the complainant and the complainant came to know about the aforesaid mortgage on 01.10.2010 when all of a sudden a demand notice was served upon the flat of the complainant by affixing the same on the door of the flat and issued notice of recovery proceeding, under the signature of the Recovery Officer of Punjab National Bank. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur referred the complaint to Police for registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and on the basis of the same Kadma P.S. Case No.180 of 2018 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for committing offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 403, 198, 408, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur found prima facie case of the said offences and took ( 2025:JHHC:25710) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2383 of 2022 cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition to discharge him from the case which is rejected vide order dated 21.05.2022 and the petitioner filed Cr. Revision No.116 of 2022 in the court of Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, challenging the said order dated 21.05.2022 passed in G.R. Case No.523 of 2019 by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur, rejected his discharge petition. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide order dated 18.11.2022 considering the material in the record, dismissed the revision application with the finding that there are sufficient evidence for making a prima facie case for the offences in respect of which charge has been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute. The informant-complainant has filed Original Title Suit No.64 of 2015 prior to initiating this criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted the prayer as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of transaction between the parties; as by knowing pretty well that the property is already mortgaged with Punjab National Bank and was not free from encumbrances, still by suppressing such material facts, by way of cheating, induced the complainant-informant, so deceived by the petitioner to deliver money and he has also misappropriated the said money. It is next submitted that police ( 2025:JHHC:25710) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2383 of 2022 after investigation of the case, has found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and so far all the three private witnesses have been examined during the trial and only Investigating Officer of the case is yet to be examined and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the instant Cr.M.P. being without on merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner consequent upon submission of charge- sheet against him and the rejection of the discharge petition of him, cannot be termed as a perverse order suffering from grave illegality. Thus, there is no illegality in the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No.116 of 2022 by which the said Cr. Revision has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and keeping in view that the trial is at the fag end and all the private witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution; this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioner is to be allowed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th of August, 2025 AFR/ Rohit