2025:JHHC:21219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 931 of 2024 ----- Anant Kumar Khalkho, S/o Late Dhanesh Khalkho R/o Village-House No. 1440 Near Mission Ground, S.P. Colony Dibadih, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ----- Oral Order 05 / Dated : 31.07.2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.06.2024 by which the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 93 of 2021 under Sections 406, 409, 420/34 of the I.P.C was rejected. 2. According to the F.I.R., the informant – Circle Officer, Gumla conducted a surprise inspection on 27.03.2021 of the public toilet located at Gumla Bus Stand and found that it was unlocked and open for public use. The operator, Bablu Kumar Gupta, informed that the operation of the toilet had been contracted in 2019 to one Banti Kumar Sahu. For a period, Banti Kumar Sahu had delegated the day- to-day maintenance of the facility to him (Bablu Kumar Gupta), who maintained the toilet while running a small shop nearby. Out of the daily earnings, Bablu paid Rs.800/- to Banti Kumar Sahu and retained Rs.200–300/- for himself. 3. It was further disclosed that during the COVID-19 lockdown, the keys of the toilet had been handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Gumla. After the easing of restrictions and resumption of normal traffic, the public faced considerable inconvenience due to the continued closure of the toilet. In order to resume operations, Banti Kumar Sahu allegedly paid Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, who was serving as City Manager of the Nagar Parishad, and Rs.10,000/- to 2025:JHHC:21219 2 the Tax Daroga, in exchange for obtaining the keys to reopen the toilet to the public. 4. Based on the written complaint of the Circle Officer, Gumla P.S. Case No. 93 of 2021 was registered under Sections 406, 420, and 409/34 of the I.P.C. Upon investigation, the allegations were found to be substantiated, and a charge sheet was submitted. 5. After cognizance was taken, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. The present revision has been preferred against that order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. For an offence under Section 409 IPC, there must be entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation by a public servant. Similarly, to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be an element of deception and inducement resulting in the delivery of property. 7. In the instant case, the F.I.R. does not disclose what property, if any, was misappropriated by the petitioner, or who was deceived into parting with any property or valuable security. In the absence of such prima facie allegations, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2021 SC 2351). 8. Learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner handed over the keys of the public toilet to an unauthorized person, and that this was done in exchange for illegal gratification. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds the present case to be peculiar, where action has been initiated merely because a public toilet was made operational for public use. If the administration had failed to timely invite tenders for its maintenance, the public ought not to have suffered due to bureaucratic inaction. There is no material to indicate that the State suffered any wrongful 2025:JHHC:21219 3 loss due to the reopening of the toilet, particularly in the absence of any subsisting contract or tender process. 10. With respect to the petitioner, it is noteworthy that no charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been brought against him. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the essential ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are not made out against the petitioner. 11. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the aforesaid offences. This criminal revision petition is allowed. Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra