1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 57 of 2025 1.Swaroop Kumar Sethi, aged about 71 years, S/o Late Panna Lal Sethi 2.Pushpa Sethi, aged about 66 years, W/o Swaroop Kumar Sethi, both R/o Flat No.124, Mahalaxmi Tower, Upper Bazar, Cart Sarai Road, Ranchi, P.O-Upper Bazar, P.S-Kotwali, District- Ranchi. …… Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Ramchandra Sharma, R/o Deen Bandhu Lane, Hari Om Market, P.O and P.S. Upper Bazar, District-Ranchi ……. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate ----------- Oral Order in Court 04/Dated:24th March, 2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by Ms. Paridhi Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.78 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1646 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section 467/420/504/506/323 of IPC by which the charge has been framed against the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case, is that the O.P. No.2 is the Co-sharer in the property of Late Parwati Devi, the owner of Hari Om Market situated at Upper Bazar, having Plot No.1693, 1694 and 1695 in Ward No.23. It is stated that the petitioners are the tenants and the Informant has got 32 shops, out of which the shop rented to the petitioners are Shop No.23 in the name of Nikhar Dresses having electrical connections 2 and Consumer No.CSUB & 1415 dated 23.06.2001. It is further alleged that this electric connection had been taken by submitting false and frivolous documents by the petitioners and a false affidavit was sworned in the name of wife of O.P. No.2 namely Sunita Devi though she was not the owner rather her mother-in-law was the owner of the said property and there is also discrepancy in the Ward number and Holding number as submitted by the petitioners. The electric connection was taken in the name of the petitioners way back in the year 2001. It is further alleged that the petitioners had instituted a Complaint Case No.608 of 2016 which is pending in the learned Lower Court in which the shop number has been shown as Shop No.1 instead of Shop No.23 and the Agreement is in the name of Chetan Sharma (third co-accused) who had leased the shop in the name of the petitioners way back in 1995 and the bond paper is of the year 1994 and hence a case was lodged against the O.P. No.2 (though the reason for institution of suit has not been given in the FIR by the O.P. No.2). It is further alleged that as per RTI he had received the form in which the electric connection was issued in the name of the petitioner and when his wife asked one Chetan Sharma about the same, he misbehaved with her and hence on that basis this case has been lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.05.2023 by which the charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 420/323/504/506 and 467 of IPC are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioners are senior citizens and have been falsely implicated 3 by the informant. It is submitted that this is a case of civil dispute and the civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal proceeding. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after delay of sixteen years on the ground that the petitioners have obtained false electric connection in the name of informant’s wife Sunita Devi although her mother Parwati Devi was the owner of the premises in question. It is submitted that earlier the petitioners had challenged the order framing charges before this High Court by filing Cr.M.P No.3663 of 2023 which was withdrawn in the light of the order dated on 01.07.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court and thereafter petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Application. 4. It is submitted that in the meantime, the trial proceeded and the witnesses have been examined, however, the impugned order is illegal. It is submitted that when the informant is on litigated terms with one Chetan Sharma, the own brother of the O.P. No.2-informant and in whose favour petitioners have given evidence in Partition Suit No.579 of 2010 which is still pending and hence, even if the charges have been framed and the witnesses have been examined, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners may be discharged. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer and submitted that the charges have been framed against the petitioners and as such this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has submitted that the charges 4 have been framed against the petitioners on 20.05.2023 itself. It is submitted that the prosecution case has already been closed and the statements of the accused persons and the petitioners have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the case is pending for defence evidence and thus, this Criminal Revision Application has become infructuous and hence it may be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records of this case, it appears that the informant has alleged that the petitioners have obtained the electric connection in the name of Sunita Devi (i.e the wife of the informant) instead of informant’s mother Parwati Devi who is the actual owner in the year 2001 whereas the FIR has been lodged in the year 2017 on 04.04.2017. 8. It appears that there were some anomalies at the time of taking cognizance by the learned Court below. However, the case was placed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ranchi. 9. It appears that vide order dated 20.05.2023 the learned Court below has framed charges under Sections 420/323/504/506 and 467 of IPC against the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Petitioner No.1-Swaroop Kumar Sethi had deposed his evidence as P.W-5 in the partition suit filed by one Chetan Sharma (i.e. brother of the informant) against Parwati Devi (mother of the O.P. No.2) in Partition Suit No.579 of 2010 and hence they have been implicated in this case by the informant- O.P.No.2. 11. It also appears from the information obtained through RTI by the learned counsel for the petitioners that four 5 connections were obtained in the year 2001 i.e. 23.06.2001 which are in the name of (i) Sunita Devi (ii) S.K. Agarwal (iii) Swaroop Kumar Sethi (i.e. petitioner no.1) and (iv) Bishwanath Bajaj. 12. This Court finds that the charges have been framed against the petitioners and the evidence is going on and the trial is at the fag end. 13. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 14. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:- “Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken 6 at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 15. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para-17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 16. It is evident from the submission of learned counsel for both the sides that both the petitioners have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the case is pending for the defence evidence. Hence, the petitioners will be at liberty to take their defence by examining their witnesses in support of 7 their case and which may be permitted by the learned Trial Court below. 17. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 18. However, it will be open to the petitioners to take steps for defence before the learned Trial Court. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-