2025:JHHC:35849 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1474 of 2023 Badri Narayan Das @ Badri Narain Das, S/o Late Bhagtu Das, R/o village Koriasha, Satsang Nagar, P.O. Satsang Nagar, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). ----- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation. ----- Opp. Party ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Adv. For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI ------- 06/03.11.2025 Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in Misc Criminal Application No. 1923/2023 arising out of RC.03(A)/2011-R(C) whereby and where under the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. An F.I.R was instituted by the C.B.I. pursuant to the direction passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 1531/2011 in respect of the maps passed by the RRDA and after investigation was concluded charge sheet was submitted by the C.B.I under Sections 420 and 120B I.P.C and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Sections 52 and 55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 against the petitioner and 2 others. The sanction for prosecution has been accorded on 21.04.2015 by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law. Cognizance has been taken on 09.07.2015 by the learned trial court under Sections 120B/420 I.P.C, Section 13(2) R/W Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 52 and 55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001. 2 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation is with respect to Plot Nos. 127 and 181 under Mouza Kadru, Ranchi in respect of sanctioning the building construction plan vide B.C. Case No. 937/2007. It has been submitted that the said building plan was sanctioned on 15.10.2007 by Shri M.P. Mishra, the then Vice- Chairman of RRDA and not the petitioner. The petitioner was posted as Vice-Chairman of RRDA after such building plan was sanctioned and he remained in the said post from May 2009 to February 2011. The allegation against the petitioner stems from the fact that he had decided L.S. Case No. 39/08 which was filed during the time of his predecessor. The said order had attained finality as the same was not challenged before the higher forum. Mr. Roy has submitted that no angle of conspiracy has surfaced during investigation and the learned trial court has erroneously decided the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that the surrounding circumstance of the case does reveal that it was the petitioner who was responsible for regularizing the illegal construction being carried on by the builder by virtue of his order dated 19.10.2010. The rules, regulations and bylaws have blatantly been flouted by the builder and the petitioner had validated such gross violations and therefore criminal conspiracy is evident on the face of the record. It has been submitted that the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and only when the evidence are brought on record can the issue be decided finally. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. It appears that a building plan was sanctioned which was submitted by Sanjay Kumar Dubey and the said sanctioned plan revealed that a multi-storied building was to be constructed over Plot No. 127 and 181 under Mouza Kadru and it was detected 3 that the said land belongs to the Jharkhand State Housing Board. It is an admitted fact that the building plan was sanctioned by Shri M.P. Mishra, the then Vice-Chairman of R.R.D.A and the predecessor of the petitioner. The role of the petitioner, as highlighted by the prosecution, is of a subsequent development which emanated from a complaint made by one Rajesh Kumar to the R.R.D.A that Sanjay Kumar Dubey has been illegally constructing a multi-storied apartment over Plot Nos. 127 and 181 in the land of the Housing Board. On such complaint a case was registered and notice was issued to Sanjay Kumar Dubey who had filed a show cause and the Housing Board had also brought to the notice of the petitioner that the said lands were acquired by the government for the Housing Board in the year 1965-66. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the petitioner dated 19.10.2010 and which has formed the foundation for prosecuting the petitioner reveals that all the sides were heard and written notes of argument had also been submitted by the respective parties. Mention has been made in the said order that the Housing Board while claiming title over the said plots of land had approached this Court in C.W.J.C No. 1546/1994(R) which was dismissed on 16.04.2009. The petitioner has mentioned in his order that there is a dispute with respect to the title of the land and the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the competent civil court for deciding the title. It has also been mentioned in the said order that as per the spot verification report of the Junior Engineer there has been certain deviations in the construction which are condonable and accordingly the builder was directed to file necessary application for regularization of the deviations made. This order has been construed by the prosecuting agency to be a deliberate act of favour to the builder for wrongful gain and the same was the culmination of the conspiracy entered into by the petitioner and others. The order passed by the petitioner is a quasi- judicial order and the party aggrieved could easily have approached the higher forum. The order also seems to be a reasoned order 4 though it would not be proper to make any observation on the findings recorded by the petitioner. At the same time it can be said that the order dated 19.10.2010 touches upon all the issues including the issue of title for which the concerned parties were directed to approach the appropriate court of law for deciding the title. Another aspect of the case seems to be the fact and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shri M. P. Mishra who had sanctioned the building plan was never made an accused in the case. 9. Though the petitioner had earlier moved this court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in W.P. (Cr.) No. 570/2015, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2015 with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues during trial. The petitioner had thereafter filed an application for discharge which was dismissed on 14.09.2023 and which is the order impugned to the present writ application. The learned trial court has not at all considered the basic tenets of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and has not even whispered about the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the petitioner and which is the foundation of the criminal case instituted against the petitioner. 10. The impugned order dated 14.09.2023 is bereft of any appropriate reasons and on proper consideration of the same as well as on the basis of the reasons assigned in this order, the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1923/2023 arising out of R.C.03(A)/2011-R(C) by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi is hereby set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the criminal case. 11. This criminal revision stands allowed. 12. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated: 03rd November 2025 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 05/12/2025