2025:JHHC:13536 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 94 of 2023 Surendra Barma @ Surendra Kumar Verma, aged about 45 years, son of Banarshi Mahto, resident of Village Kharaagpur, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S-Hariharganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP ----------- Oral Order in Court 07/Dated:01st May, 2025 I.A. No.4015 of 2023 I.A No.4015 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 609 days. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State dated 17.09.2024 and the learned APP has contested the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed Cr.M.P. No.439 of 2018 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as F.I.R but later on it was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to raise all the points at the appropriate stage vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi). It is further submitted that even the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) had set aside the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the learned C.J.M, Latehar in Cr.M.P. No.1626 of 2019 (Gaya Kumar Verma @ Gaya Verma 2025:JHHC:13536 2 vs. The State of Jharkhand) vide order dated 09.02.2021 and the matter was remanded to the Court below to pass fresh order. Hence, the delay may be condoned and the impugned order may be set aside as has been passed in the case of Gaya Kumar Verma @ Gaya Verma vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No.1626 of 2019. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit in the light of the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra as then his Lordship was). It has been submitted that the delay of 609 days has not been properly explained and it was intentional. It has been submitted that the petitioner was negligent and careless in pursuing the order rejecting the discharge petition. 5. It has been submitted that in view of the law laid down in the case of P.K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerla, decided on 19.09.1997, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the condonation of delay of 565 days which was allowed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and hence the instant Interlocutory Application may be rejected and this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State in I.A No.4015 of 2023, this Court finds that the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner filed under section 239 Cr.P.C was rejected on 02.03.2019. 7. It appears from the impugned order dated 02.03.2019 was passed much earlier. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had filed earlier Cr.M.P. No.439 of 2018 for quashing the entire proceeding as well as F.I.R in Latehar P.S Case No.146 of 2016 but later on it was withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points at an appropriate stage vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed by 2025:JHHC:13536 3 the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi). 8. This Court finds that the cause of action of filing Cr.M.P. No.439 of 2018 was totally different to the present case as it relates to challenging the discharge petition. There was no stay of further proceeding pending in the learned Court below. Even the Covid-19 Pandemic period started in January, 2020 whereas impugned order passed much earlier on 02.03.2019. 9. This Court finds that the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner. 10. This is a case relates to cheating of more than Seven (07) Crores from the poor villagers by the accused persons including the petitioner and causing huge loss to them. 11. It also appears that what the petitioner could not get it directly, now he is trying to get it indirectly because earlier one Cr.M.P. No.439 of 2018 has already been dismissed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi). 12. It also appears that cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 19.12.2016 and which has been observed by the learned C.J.M vide order dated 22.03.2018. 13. It also appears that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court below vide impugned order dated 02.03.2019 which is well reasoned speaking order runs in total 12 pages. 14. It also appears that the petitioner has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court. 15. This Court is also not in respectful agreement with the order dated 09.02.2021 passed in Cr. M.P. No.1626 of 2019 by the Co-ordinate Bench. 2025:JHHC:13536 4 16. Thus, the prayer for condoning the delay of six (06) years is not fit to be condoned and as such, I.A No.4015 of 2023 is hereby rejected. Cr. Revision No.94 of 2023 17. Even on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not named in the First Information Report but during course of investigation, his name has transpired in this case. 18. It is submitted that the Investors have transferred their money in the Account of the Company and the petitioner has no concern with the money invested through the company. It is submitted that during course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has been given by the witnesses although the petitioner is the investor/victim of the scheme of the company and as such except this there is no any material collected against him by the police during investigation. 19. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the I.O of the present case has taken statement of several witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C and no witnesses have stated anything against the petitioner that they have given or transferred their money in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that no case under section 406, 419 and 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 20. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that there is no irregularity in the impugned order 21. It reveals from the F.I.R that 450 customers of Latehar district had invested more than seven (07) crores in the D.J.N Commodities company and list of such persons have also been enclosed in the F.I.R and the lists reveal that Rs.7,25,33,662/- has been cheated by the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:13536 5 22. It appears that the petitioner has enticed the poor people in the village to invest their hard earned money through D.J.N Commodities. 23. So far as merit of the case is concerned, this Court finds that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Court below has taken notice that the petitioner has induced the people to make investment in their company which was in the name of D.J.N Commodities and even the petitioner has got transferred amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs) through cheque in the Bank Account and the wife of the petitioner is also beneficiary. 24. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous examination of the statement of witnesses are not meticulously evaluated and there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the trial court cannot hold mini trial. 25. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 26. 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 2025:JHHC:13536 6 confined to the material produced by the police.” 27. 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.” 28. 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 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 2025:JHHC:13536 7 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).” 29. 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 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. 2025:JHHC:13536 8 30. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court find that the present Criminal Revision filed on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. 31. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No.94 of 2023 is hereby dismissed. 32. I.A No.4015 of 2023 has been rejected. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-