2025:JHHC:32466 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1129 of 2024 …. Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee, S/o Samir Chatterjee, aged about 49 years, R/o A.G. Office Road, Opposite Loreto Convent, North Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi officiating from his at 98 GF + QQ4, Kutchery Chowk, Deputy Para, PO- GPO, PS- Kotwali, Ahirtoli, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834001 2. Minu Ghosh aged about not known to petitioner, W. o Sandeep Kumar Ghosh, Ro C- 154 D, Icom Tower, DLF, Phase No. 5, Sector-63, Gurugram, PO + PS- Sector- 63,Dist.- Gurugram …… Opp. Parties With Cr. Revision No. 227 of 2025 …. Meenu Ghosh, aged about 56 years, wife of Sandip Kumar Ghosh, resident of I-726, Ground Floor, Park Hospital, Palam Vihar, Cartarpuri alias Daulatpur, Nasirabad, 63, Gurgaon, PO and PS- Gurgaon, District- Gurgaon, Harayana …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee aged about 49 years, Son of Samir Chatterjee, resident of A.G. Office Road, Opposite Loreto Convent, North Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate [Cr. Rev. No. 1129 of 2024] Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate [Cr. Rev. No. 227 of 2025] For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III [Cr. Rev. No. 1129 of 2024] Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A. P. P. [Cr. Rev. No. 227 of 2025] For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate [Cr. Rev. No. 1129 of 2024] 2025:JHHC:32466 -2- Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate [Cr. Rev. No. 227 of 2025] …… C.A.V. on 11.06.2025 Pronounced on 16/10/2025 Both the Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025 are being disposed of together as they are arising out of the common order dated 09.08.2024 passed by Sri Achhat Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in MCA No. 5219 of 2023 in connection with Doranda P. S. Case No. 188 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 3129 of 2022 by which discharge petiton filed by the petitioner-Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee has been partly allowed and partly rejected. 2. The Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner- Joy Deb Chatterjee challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in MCA No. 5219 of 2023 in connection with Doranda P. S. Case No. 188 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 3129 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by which the discharge petiton filed by the petitioner-Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee has been partly allowed under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and partly rejected to discharge him under Sections 406, 420, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Meenu Ghosh (Informant) challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial 2025:JHHC:32466 -3- Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in MCA No. 5219 of 2023 in connection with Doranda P. S. Case No. 188 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 3129 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no. 2 by which the application filed by the opposite party no. 2-Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee for discharge has been partly allowed and the learned Court has discharged the opposite party no. 2 for the offence registered under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code without hearing her and without serving copy of the discharge petition upon her. 4. The case of the Informant- Meenu Ghosh is that she was approached by the accused- opposite party no. 2, Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee and one another person namely P.K. Shrivastava, who after hatching conspiracy, induced and lured the informant to invest in their coal business by presenting some fake documents with fake facts upon which the petitioner relied and agreed to invest and become partner in the accused's business. The informant being naive, invested a sum of Rs 1,30,00,000/- (one crore thirty lakhs) which was transferred in the account of the accused through RTGS between 18/3/2019 to 25/10/2019. Thereafter, the informant was further assured by the accused, accused's wife and accused's mother that by investing in the business, the accused would give huge amount of profit to the informant and make the informant partner in the coal business. Further, it has been alleged by the informant that the accused did not return any amount in lieu of her investment in the next one and a half years from the date of investment and upon demanding the 2025:JHHC:32466 -4- return of the investment, the informant was denied of the same by the accused. On further persuasion by the informant, the accused handed over three different Power of Attorney of his three properties as security which were worth around Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (three crores only) with the clause that the properties will not be sold to any individual unless expressly permitted by the informant. Upon further demand by the informant, the informant was denied payment against her Investment and was informed that the power of attorney has been revoked using false and fabricated documents and the informant was further threatened that the accused is a man of means and power and he will do away with her life. The informant alleges in the FIR that the accused defrauded the informant and duped her hard-earned money and the accused shirked away from their responsibility to pay any amount to the informant. Hence, the instant case was lodged against accused person under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 read with 34 and 120B of I.P.C., 1860 in Doranda Police Station being Doranda P.S. Case No. 188 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 6. Argument in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. It is submitted that learned Court below has committed illegality by partially allowing 2025:JHHC:32466 -5- the discharge petition by which the petitioner was discharged for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, trial of other offences under Sections 406/34, 420/34, 504/34 and 120B of I.P.C. is pending against him. It is submitted that this is a case of civil dispute and no ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the prosecution case cannot run simultaneously under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the investment made by the Informant in the business of the petitioner cannot be said to be an entrustment and as such, the allegation under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted. It is submitted that the learned Court below has erred in holding that the contents of the First Information Report, itself disclose the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted that the petitioner has also returned the amount of Rs. 96,25,000/- (Rupees Ninety- Six Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand) to the opposite party no. 2 between May, 2019 to February, 2022. However, the petitioner was compelled to cancel the power of attorney granted in favour of the opposite party no. 2, but the same was done after following due procedure as prescribed in law and also on account of the fact that the Informant i.e. opposite party no. 2 was misusing the same by disposing of the property of the petitioner by executing registered sale deed because Power of Attorney was given to the Informant-opposite party no. 2 as security at throw-away prices. It is submitted that the petitioner had given four power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 while exercising the power conferred by the 2025:JHHC:32466 -6- Power of Attorney bearing No. 64 dated 22nd of January, 2021 got executed a registered sale deed bearing no. 11386 dated 08th of November, 2021 and sold the property in her favour for a mere consideration of Rs. 79,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy Nine Lakhs Only). However, the said property was worth more than Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only). It is submitted that this is a case ‘Civil dispute’ and civil dispute has been converted into criminal proceeding by the Informant in an illegal manner by misusing her power and contacts. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments, which are as follows:- (i) Captain Manjit Singh Virdhi v. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf And Ors. Reported in (2023) 7 SCC 633 (ii) Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC Online SC 461 (iii) M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448 (iv) Sainath v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 354 (v) Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488 and as such, in view of above fact, the Criminal Revision Application No. 1129 of 2024 may be allowed. 8. Argument in Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025:- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is 2025:JHHC:32466 -7- submitted that learned Court below has committed error by discharging the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the petitioner – Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that learned court below has passed the impugned judgment mechanically. It is submitted that learned court below has failed to take into consideration that in the case of Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577 at para 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. 9. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that forgery is the act of creating or altering a document or object with the intention of deceiving someone and in the first information report and the evidences support the contention that O. P. No. 2 has committed forgery against the petitioner and is liable to be punished under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC also. It is submitted that learned court below has failed to take into consideration that only because the power of attorney was cancelled by the O. P. No. 2, which is allowed in law, cannot be 2025:JHHC:32466 -8- said to be a ground for discharge of O. P. No. 2 from the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider that the O. P. No. 2, Joy Deb Chatterjee had given power of attorney to the petitioner as a security for the cheated amount which was taken from the petitioner- Meenu Ghosh and in the first information report the petitioner stated that O. P. No. 2 by forging several documents has told that he will get the power of attorney cancelled and thus petitioner cannot do anything. It is submitted that learned court below has failed to consider that the power of attorney was revoked by the accused without any prior written notice to the informant and even without paying the amount of and to the informant. It is submitted that the learned Court below cannot hold mini trial by scrutinizing the evidence on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Meenu Ghosh has relied upon the following judgments, which are as follows:- (i) Asim Shariff Versus NIA reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148 at para- 18. (ii) Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2022 (9) SCC 577 at para- 15 It is submitted that the learned Court below has committed grave error by allowing the discharge petition partly without hearing the petitioner – Meenu Ghosh in Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025, who is opposite party no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. It is submitted that after rejection of the discharge petition on 09.08.2024 by the impugned order, charges have been framed 2025:JHHC:32466 -9- against the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the petitioner – Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406/34, 420/34, 504/34 and 120-B of I.P.C. vide order dated 18.11.2024. However, this fact has been supressed by the opposite party no. 2 Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee while filing Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024. It is submitted that learned Court below has passed the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in MCA No.5219 of 2023 only on the ground that in para-135 of the case diary it is mentioned that act of revocation of power of attorney may be an act of cheating but the documents used or has been prepared for the purpose of revocation of power of attorney, are in no way forged. It is submitted that at the stage of deciding the discharge petition no roving inquiry is required to be conducted rather only material submitted by the prosecution should be considered as to whether there is sufficient material on record for framing of charge, which if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused. It is further submitted that the defence version is not to be taken into consideration as the same is the subject matter of trial and hence, this Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2008 may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that this is a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating to the Informant by the petitioner. It is submitted 2025:JHHC:32466 -10- that the petitioner has cheated huge amount of Rs. 1.30 Crores from the O. P. No. 2 and hence, prayer made in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 is devoid of merit and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court and the Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 13. Perused the FIR, case diary and records of this case and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of both the sides. 14. Vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court I.A. No. 938 of 2025 filed by the petitioner- – Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 was allowed by this Court by incorporating the order dated 18.11.2024 by which charges were framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2024 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. It appears that one Meenu Ghosh (who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025 and opposite party no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024), has lodged the FIR against the petitioner – Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee (who is petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 and the O. P. No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 18.07.2022 for the occurrence taking place between 01.12.2019 till 30.06.2021. 16. Thereafter the police has submitted charge sheet and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on 01.11.2022 and the charges have been framed against the petitioner – Joy Deb 2025:JHHC:32466 -11- Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024) on 18.11.2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. It also appears that the petitioner is alleged to have taken loan of Rs. One (1) Crore and Thirty (30) Lakh from the Informant- Meenu Ghosh. 18. It appears that the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that there is sufficient ingredient to frame charges under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner -Joy Deb Chatterjee mainly on the ground that he has taken loan from the Informant -Meenu Ghosh and which is yet to be paid as per the Informant-Meenu Ghosh. The learned Court below has also held that it is admitted case of the petitioner that he has revoked one of four (4) power of attorney granted earlier to the Informant. 19. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below has not considered the case of the petitioner as to whether this is a case of civil dispute or not and has relied upon several judicial pronouncement. 20. It is evident from the record that although the petitioner had filed discharge petition on 02.08.2023, but the copy of the discharge petitioner was not served to the Informant or learned counsel for the Informant before the learned Court below. 21. It further transpires that even the learned Court had not informed the Informant while hearing discharge petition on behalf of the petitioner. 22. It appears that while passing the impugned order, the learned Court below has discharged the petitioner-Joy Deb 2025:JHHC:32466 -12- Chatterjee (Cr. Revision No. 1129 of 2024) for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by allowing the discharge petition in part. 23. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the certain judgements mentioned above and even learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2 has also relied upon the certain judgments, which have been referred hereinabove, on the merits of the case, However, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in absence of the Informant and as such, discussion of the above judgment on the merit by this Court may prejudice the case of both the sides. 24. 24. In view of the fact that the notice has not been issued upon the Informant by the learned Court below at the time of disposing of the discharge petition dated 02.08.2023 filed by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by Sri Achhat Srivastava, then learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in connection with Doranda P. S. Case No. 188 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 3129 of 2022, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Court below to pass afresh speaking order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the sides, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. However, learned Court below shall not examine any witnesse (s) on behalf of the Informant-O. P. No. 2 till the disposal of discharge petition filed by the petitioner as the matter remained pending in the High Court since, 2024. It is clarified that this order is not being passed on the merit of the case. 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024, 2025:JHHC:32466 -13- which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner- Joy Deb Chatterjee @ Jai Dev Chatterjee and Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025 are allowed and remitted back to the learned Court below with the observation mentioned above. 27. Thus, both the Criminal Revision No. 1129 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2025 stand disposed of with the above observation. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 16.10.2025 Kamlesh/