1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No 579 of 2024 …. Manoj Kumar Thakur …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ashok Kumar Sahni …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Pandey A.N Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A. P. P. For the O.P No. 2 : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate …… Order No: 09/Dated: 17.02.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in G.R Case No. 270 of 2023 arising out of Simdega P.S Case No. 05/2023 by which the learned Court below had framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the informant runs a hotel at Simdega and the petitioner Manoj Kumar Thakur used to take food in the hotel of his father since on year. During that course intimacy developed between them and Manoj Kumar Thakur has stated that he has good relation with some of the railway officers and has further stated that his son is also posted in Railway Department and they can help in getting job. Thus, his father came under the influence of the petitioner and started talking with him for job of his son Ashok Kumar Sahni. Manoj Kumar Thakur assured his father that he will get join his son as Ticket Clerk in Railway Department for a consideration 2 money of Rs. 5,00.000/-. However, his father told the petitioner Manoj Kumar Thakur that he was unable to pay the said amount in one time rather he will pay the same within 6-7 months. Thereafter, his father had paid Rs. 40.000/- on 04.01.2022 and Rs. 10,000/- on 07.02.2022 and Rs. 60,000/- on 28.04.2022. The petitioner had earlier took Rs. 24,000/- in the name of preparation of document. Manoj Kumar Thakur has further stated that rest amount will be paid to him through cheque. Thereafter, Manoj Kumar Thakur @ Manoj Kumar Sharma had taken four (04) cheques of different dates from his father of IDBI Bank, Simdega Branch in which his father had put his signature. Manoj Kumar Thakur had taken Rs. 60,000/- through Cheque No. 11254 dated 17.01.2022, Rs. 45,000/- through Cheque No. 11289 dated 13.05.2022 amounting to Rs. 4,25,000/- when he received messages regarding payment of money on his mobile he found that name of one Yogesh Kumar Sharma has been shown in the cheque issued on 17.01.2022 and 15.03.2022 and the name of Manoj Kumar Thakur has been shown in the cheque issued on 13.05.2022 in the name of Manoj Kumar Thakur has been shown in the cheque issued on 27.04.2022. Manoj Kumar Thakur further assured his father to issue a cheque of Rs. 2,25,000/- with an assurance that he will return the money taken by him and on 16.06.2022 his father issued a cheque of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the name of Manoj Kumar Thakur @ Manoj Kumar Sharma. However, suddenly the informant suspected that Manoj Kumar Thakur has cheated him then he immediately informed the bank for non-payment of amount of Cheque No. 11297 and hence, the said payment could not be made. 3 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P No. 2. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the police, after investigation, had submitted charge sheet against the petitioner on 28.06.2023 and the learned Court below had taken cognizance on 30.06.2023 against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner was posted at Simdega in Pashupalan Department at Simdega and was in good relation with the informant and informant’s father. It is further submitted that due to good relation between both the parties, he had given Rs. 4,25,000/- loan amount to run his business smoothly on 16.11.2022, after passing a long period when he had demanded the said amount then differences between the petitioner and the informant’s father. Thereafter, the informant’s father had returned some amount through Cheque. It is submitted that after the encashment of aforesaid amount informant’s father again issued a cheque of Rs. 2,25,000/- on 06.06.2022 vide Cheque No. 011297 of IDBI Bank, Simdega but same was bounced. It is further submitted that for the aforesaid bouncing of cheque, the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No. 10048 of 2022 on 04.11.2022 against the informant’s father under Section 138 of N.I Act and the learned Court below vide order dated 08.12.2022 has taken cognizance under Section 138 of N.I Act against the father of the informant. It is submitted that the when the petitioner 4 had filed the complaint petition against the father of the petitioner on 01.11.2022, then the informant had lodged an F.I.R on 12.01.2023. It is submitted that no case under Sections 419, 420, 406 of I.P.C is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has passed order to frame charge against the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the point of charge. It is submitted that in view of Section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein, there is specific provision that after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of hearing, the learned Court below considered that the charges against the accused to be groundless he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for doing but herein, in this case, the learned Court below without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner even though the order was passed on 04.01.2024 adjourning the case to 18.01.2024 for hearing on the point of charge but, on that date without hearing on the point of charge, the learned Court below framed charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that this case has been lodged by the informant against the petitioner with an ulterior motive and with malafide intention because the petitioner had lodged a case against the father of the informant before the filing of this case by the informant and the learned Court below had taken cognizance against the father of the informant and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments which are as follows:- (i) In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others versus A. Masilamani 5 reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530. (ii) In the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 720. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no intereference is required. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner is not required to be heard and no elaborate order is required to be passed and hence, this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is not maintainable. It is submitted that the learned Court below had fixed the date of on 18.01.2024 for framing of the charges and as such, the charges have rightly been framed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitiioner had cheated Rs. 6,50,000/- from the father of the informant and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the F.I.R and the impugned order and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It appears from the F.I.R that the petitioner is said to have induced the father of the informant to deliver Rs. 5,00,000/- initially to provide job to his son Ashok Kumar Sahni and for which, the father of the informant had handed over Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- in cash on 04.01.2022, 07.02.2022, 28.04.2022 and 15.03.2022 respectively. The father of the informant has further delievered cheque of Rs. 60,000/- vide 6 Cheque No. 11254 dated 17.01.2022, Rs. 45,000/- vide Cheque No. 11276 dated 16.03.2022, Rs. 50,000/- vide Cheque No. 11285 dated 27.04.2022 and Rs. 45,000/- vide Cheque No. 11289 dated 13.05.2022 and some of the cheques were debited in the account of Yogesh Kumar Sharma as well as the petitioner Manoj Kumar Thakur. The father of the informant is said to have further induced the father of the informant to deliver Rs. 2,25,000/- in the year 2022 which could not be paid on 06.06.2022 due to closure of bank account on account of request of stop payment of the said cheque by the father of the informant. The petitioner is alleged to have cheated Rs. 6,50,000/- from the father of the Informant in the garb of providing job to the Informant Ashok Kumar Sahni in the Railway Department with the help of one Yogesh Kumar Sharma. 10. It appears that the petitioner has taken the defence that he had instituted a case against the father of the informant for the dishonor of cheque by filing Complaint Case No. 10048 of 2022 on 04.11.2022 and the learned Court below had taken cogniznce under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the father of the informant. 11. It further appears that the police had submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 419,. 420 and 406 of I.P.C on 28.06.2023. After supplying the police papers to the accused petitioner, the case was fixed for hearing on the point of charge. 12. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised number of submissions with regard to not hearing the petitioner on the point of charge and also for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. However, there is nothing on record to show as to which was the first day fixed for framing of charges. 7 Although, it has been stated by the learned Senior Counsel that cognizance had been taken against the petitioner on 30.06.2023. However, there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was the date fixed between 30.06.2023 to 04.01.2024. 13. There is nothing brought on record to show that the petitioner had filed discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the learned Court below or not? and the same was pending before the learned Court below or not? 14. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has enclosed the order sheet dated 04.01.2024 and the order dated 18.01.2024 in the same page in this Criminal Revision Application and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was prevented from filing discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 15. The order sheet dated 04.01.2024 reveals that the P.O was transferred and the accused petitioner was produced through video conferencing and the case was fixed on 18.01.2024 for hearing on the point of charge. Thereafter, on 18.01.2024 the petitioner Manoj Kumar Thakur was produced from Mandal Kara, Simdega through video conferencing. The accused was read over and explained the charges under Section 406, 419 and 420 of I.P.C in Hindi and to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the charges under Section 406, 419 and 420 of I.P.C were framed. The accused did not complain any audio/video connectivity. The case was fixed on 31.01.2024 for prosecution evidence. 16. Thus, it is evident that the defence has not even taken the plea for filing discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the learned Court below through his counsel while he was produced from the jail custody through video conferencing before 8 the learned Court below. The accused petitioner himself or through his learned Counsel could have prayed for filing discharge petition and for posting the case to some other date so that he could have filed the discharge petition but he failed to do so. 17. It appears that on 04.10.2024 the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) of this Court had condoned the delay and had issued notice upon O.P No. 2 by fixing the date on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, on 28.11.2024 both the parties had appeared and the case was fixed on 06.01.2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court and there was no interim order during the said period. Thereafter, on 06.01.2025 the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Dr. S.N Pathak, as then His Lordship was) of this Court had fixed the case on 10.02.2025 for filing the counter affidavit and had stayed the proceeding of the Trial Court till further date of hearing. Thereafter, this case has been placed before this Court on 17.02.2025. 18. It is well settled that the learned Court below is not required to assign reasons while framing charges against any accused person (i.e. the petitioner) and no elaborate order is required to be passed. 19. So far as the judgment reported in (2022) 15 SCC 720 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case in view of the fact that in the above case the accused appellant had filed the discharge petition before the learned Court below (i.e. C.J.M, Sant Kabir Nagar) and the learned C.J.M had rejected the discharge petition by a non-speaking order. Thereafter, the said appellant had moved before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by filing Criminal Revision which was 9 rejected by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed Criminal Revision without going into the merits of the case and thereafter the matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had filed any such discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C or not? Although, the petitioner has prayed that the learned Court below has framed the charges against the petitioner without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of charge vide impugned ordeer dated 18.01.2024. Thus, the above judgment reported in (2022) 15 SCC 720 is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 20. So far as the judgment reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 is concerned, the same relates to Departmental Enquiry and the word ‘Consider’ has been discussed in Para-19 of the above judgment, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, the same has been passed on different context of the case. In the above case the appellant L.I.C had preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by challenging the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras by which the judgment by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court was affirmed whereas, the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the delinquent employee had been quashed. The learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Madras had quashed the proceedings of delinquent employee passed by the L.I.C authorities who had reduced the basic pay scale of the delinquent employee by observing that the delinquent employee was not accorded adequate opportunity to cross examine 10 the witnesses and also on the ground that witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry in violation of statuory rules. The submission was also raised that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the disciplinary proceeding as well as punishment imposed as the same does not fall within the scope of judicial review and the decision not to remand the case for re-consideration at such a belated stage could also not be justified and in that context, the word “Consider” was interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court by observing that formation of opinion by the staturoty authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the materials available on record and the order of authority itself should reveal such application of mind. Thereafter, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras was set aside and the case was remitted to the authority concerned for fresh enquiry. Thus, the above judgment is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case as it has been passed on different context. 21. This is a case of cheating of Rs. 6,50,000/- by the Revisionist petitioner from the father of the informant by taking four (04) cheques of different amounts as mentioned earlier and also cash on different dates as mentioned in the F.I.R. 22. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges the statement of witnesses is not required to be meticulously examined and there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the Trial Court cannot hold mini trial. 23. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 11 24. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR 127 at Para-25 as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 25. 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 at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 26. 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 12 para17.3, 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).” 27. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:- “Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to 13 evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 28. It has been held in the case of Bhawna Bai versus Ghanshyam and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217 at Paragraph No. 16 which is as follows:- “Para-16:- After referring to Amit Kapoor, in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that for framing charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence” 29. The above judgment reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217 that the Trial Court is not required to record detailed reason as to why charges were framed. 30. In view of the discussions made above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Court below. 29. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 579 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/ N.A.F.R