(2026:JHHC:5582) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1255 of 2023 …. Yogendra Roy, aged about 67 years, son of late Ramdutt Rai, resident of House No. – H – 89, Argora Housing Colony, PO & PS – Argora, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). … .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Ajay Kumar, son of late R.B. Singh, resident of House No. H – 89, Argora Housing Colony, PO & PS – Argora, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). … .. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kachhap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the Opp. P. No. 2 : Mr. Amratansh Vats, Advocate CAV JUDGMENT Delivered on 09.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Sri Praveen Oraon, learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. vide petition filed being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3062 of 2023 dated 11.05.2023 for the offences under Section 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected and the case is fixed for framing of charge, which is now pending in the Court of Sri Praveen Oraon, learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi for trial. And also, one complaint case has been instituted. 2. The present case has been instituted by the complainant (opposite party no. 2 herein) alleging therein that the complainant is qualified and educated personality of the Ranchi (2026:JHHC:5582) 2 Town and runs an N.G.O. namely “Humanity” with full dignity and respect within the same locality. It is further alleged that the complainant works for upliftment of the poor and work with an ideology to help the needy person whenever any person comes to meet him before his office of “Humanity”. It is further alleged that the accused (petitioner) was also known about the activities of the complainant but such good behavior and gesture of the complainant (opposite party no. 2) never appreciated by the accused / petitioner and the same has become a cause of maligning his reputation. It is further alleged that the accused- petitioner, in order to damage the reputation of the complainant, used to take several attempts either to implicate in any criminal cases for the allegation of corruption misappropriation of articles belonging to Van Vibhag and the allegation of exploitation of child labour etc. and in this regard the accused - petitioner made written complaint with concerned Govt. Offices for prosecution against the complainant (opposite party no. 2). It is further alleged that the accused - petitioner knowingly and with pre- planned tried to defame the social status and assassinate the character at the complainant (opposite party no. 2) in the public at large through writing and sending such baseless and manufactured letters / complaint since the year 2010. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 by which discharge petition under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been illegally and wrongly rejected by the learned court below. 4. It is submitted that earlier the complainant (opposite party no. 2) had filed one Complaint Case being No. C – 2420 / 2014 which was ultimately sent to concerned police station for instituting / (2026:JHHC:5582) 3 lodging the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. was lodged being Dorana P.S. Case No. 741 of 2014 under Section 500 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation made in that complaint case was exact and same then the allegation made in this present complaint case. However, the police submitted final form / charge sheet in that case and the learned court was pleased to drop the proceeding against the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2016. 5. It is submitted by suppressing this material fact from the Court the complainant filed this present complaint case in the year 2017 exactly on the same set of allegation which is not permissible in law unless there is some exceptional circumstances and in the present case the complainant (opposite party no. 2) has not been able to show the exceptional circumstances. 6. It is submitted that the complainant (opposite party no. 2) has completely failed to bring evidence against the petitioner and there is no material against the petitioner for framing of charge under the alleged offences and the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the alleged offences. 7. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for discharge made by the petitioner on the ground that cognizance has been taken under Section 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and merely mentioning the evidence available on record but without discussing and giving reason. 8. It is further submitted that there are catena of judgments of this Hon’ble High Court as well as of the Hob’ble Supreme Court of India that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order is soul to decide any issue / prayer so that it could be reflected from the (2026:JHHC:5582) 4 order as to on what ground and for what reason this order has been passed which can be adjudged / decided by the higher forum. 9. It is submitted that two witnesses, namely, Satyendra Mistri and Amarnath Bhagat shown in the complaint by the complainant, had not been examined under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. and only the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. 10. It is submitted that during pendency of this criminal revision application, the court below had framed charges under Section 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and for which he had filed I.A. No. 8576 of 2024 and the Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 30.08.2024 had allowed the said I.A. No. 8576 of 2024 for setting aside also the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Ms. Rupam Smriti Topno, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi. Then the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi had framed charges against the petitioner under Section 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was fixed for “After Charge Evidence”. 11. It is further submitted that from perusal of the complaint petition as well as on solemn affirmation (in short SA), no ingredient of charge under Section 464 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rahul Gandhi Vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Another reported in (2024) 2 SCC 595 and in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, may be set aside and the petitioner may be discharged and this criminal revision, may be allowed. (2026:JHHC:5582) 5 13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is further submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned order on the basis of solemn affirmation (in short SA) of the complainant and after considering the case of the parties. It is further submitted that the probative value of the statement of the witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of the framing of charges. It is further submitted that due to act of the petitioner, the complainant has suffered huge loss of prestige in the society and as such, this criminal revision application being devoid of merit, may be dismissed. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 after adopting the submissions of the learned Spl. P.P., has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed wrong petitions against the Opposite Party No. 2 before several authorities including Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court and also before JHALSA. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner has sent a letter before the President of India, the Prime Minister and other dignitaries against the Opposite Party No. 2. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 has to make correspondence before all the concerned however the allegation against the petitioner was not found correct. (2026:JHHC:5582) 6 It is further submitted that initially an “FIR” was lodged but the same was withdrawn with liberty to the Opposite Party No. 2 to file a complaint petition. It is further submitted that due to act of the petitioner, the prestige of the Opposite Party No. 2 has been destroyed in the society and he has suffered a lot of mental agony and humiliation in the society, in front of the family members as well as before the public. 15. It appears that the complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 had filed Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2017 on 26.04.2017 that the petitioner had malign his image by filing frivolous letters and complaints before the State officials like DFO, Ranchi, Chief Secretary by making false signature of Smt. Abha Shiha, Social Worker Child Line, Ranchi. The complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 was shown corrupt, criminal and associate of naxal organization. 16. It appears that the petitioner had filed written complaint on 11.04.2011 and 08.02.2013 before various government offices for theft of Gavion of iron (iron finishing of a plant) and filed other sets of allegations as contained in Annexure - III of the complaint that the complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 had made torturous activity upon the child labour, namely, Vikas Kumar. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was made and on 24.08.2011 then IFS Sri R. N. Prasad declared that allegation of theft of gavian of iron is false even the Additional S.P., Hatia has made false allegation against the complainant which was made by the accused - petitioner in complaint letters dated 24.05.2010 and other letter. Even the Deputy Labour Commissioner had submitted inquiry report with the Labour Commissioner stating (2026:JHHC:5582) 7 therein that the allegation towards "Torture of Child Labour are False" the complainant enclosed the copy of the inquiry report dated 24.08.2011, 17.04.2012, 01.06.2012 and 16.04.2013 in his complaint petition. Even accused - petitioner has written letters to the authorities concerned in the fake name of Smt. Abha Sinha only just in order to assassinate the character of the Social Worker of the O.P. No. 2 in the society and hence action may be taken against the accused - petitioner under Sections 500, 420, 466, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 had earlier filed complaint i.e., Complaint Case No. C - 2420 / 2014 which was sent to the Police for instituting the FIR (Annexure - 3) was lodged being Doranda P.S. Case No. 741 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 500 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. However in the said case, the Police had submitted Final Form i.e., Annexure –3/1 in favour of the petitioner and the proceeding was dropped against the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure - 3/2). It has also been averred that the petitioner is habitual in lodging false case against the O.P. No. 2 with malafide intention. 18. It appears that in the instant complaint case being Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2017,the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation (hereinafter to be referred as SA) before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate - cum - Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. The complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 has also produced certain documents such as letters sent to the officer - in-charge, (2026:JHHC:5582) 8 Argoda, Argoda P.S., letters sent to DFO, Doranda, Ranchi and letters sent by Abha Sinha to Chief Secretary, Ranchi and letters sent to Range Officer, Timber Depo Region, Ranchi dated 24.08.2011. 19. Thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M. had taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 26.06.2019 and summon was issued to the petitioner. 20. The petitioner appeared before the learned court below on 01.10.2019 and he was enlarged on bail on 01.10.2019 by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi. 21. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 16.01.2020 under the heading "Before Charge Evidence". In the meantime, covid pandemic period started as it reveals from the order-sheet and finally the case was adjourned on several dates and on 23.04.2022 and 14.07.2022 for evidence “before charge”. 22. Thereafter, on 18.08.2022 the complainant got examined one witness Ajay Kumar who was examined, cross-examined and and the complainant got proved the following the documents as the exhibits as follows;- i. Exhibit - 1 is Memo No. 919 dated 21.08.2015, ii. Exhibit - 2 is Memo No. 885 dated 12.05.2022, iii. Exhibit - 3 is Memo No. 3640 dated 08.8.2017 and iv. Exhibit - 4 is letter No. 219 dated 02.06.2017. 23. Thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed on 28.09.2022 and it was fixed on 15.12.2022 for framing of charges. However the complainant was absent on 15.12.2022 and dates were fixed on 13.02.2023, 15.03.2023 and 17.04.2023. (2026:JHHC:5582) 9 24. Thereafter, the petitioner filed discharge petition on 10.05.2023 however by impugned order dated 05.08.2023, the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below by passing a speaking order, thereafter, petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision. 25. However, during pendency of this Criminal Revision before this Court, the charges were framed against the petitioner on 10.07.2024 for the offence under Sections 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 26. It transpires that the learned court below vide order dated 10.07.2024 observed that no sufficient material is found under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code as evidence against the petitioner and does not disclose any cheating with the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2. 27. Thereafter order of framing charges dated 10.07.2024 was also challenged in this Criminal Revision by filing I.A. No. 8526 of 2024 and which was allowed on 30.08.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnakar Bhengra as then his Lordship was) of this Court. 28. It transpires from the LCR that the complaint case was filed by the complainant on 26.04.2017 and the complainant was examined on ‘solemn affirmation’ on 03.08.2017 by the learned S.D.J.M. Thereafter the case was fixed for inquiry evidence on 04.09.2017, 13.011.2017, 09.01.2017, 23.02.2018, 17.04.2018, 22.05.2018 and 07.06.2018 and on the request of the complainant, inquiry evidence was closed on 23.07.2018 and case was fixed of hearing on 17.08.2018. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.06.2019, the learned court below on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition (2026:JHHC:5582) 10 and solemn affirmation of the complainant had taken cognizance under Section 409 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner although the Opposite Party No. 2 had filed complaint for taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 419, 466, 469, 470, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 29. It appears from the LCR that on 07.09.2019 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant –Opposite Party No. 2 stating therein that the accused – petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2019 in connection with Argoda P.S. Case No. 372 of 2012 (GR No. 4311 of 2012) and the office was directed to issue production warrant for appearance or remand of the petitioner in this instant case. 30. Thereafter on 01.10.2019, the petitioner, namely, Yogendra was produced on the basis of production warrant however there was grant of bail by the learned S.D.J.M. as the offence leveled against the petitioner were bailable in nature. 31. Thereafter the complaint case was fixed for “Accusation of Substance” on 14.11.2019. However on 14.11.2019, the case was fixed on 16.01.2020 for evidence before charge. Thereafter, on 16.01.2020, the petitioner filed a petition for issuance of summons upon one Amarnath Bhagat who was posted as DFO, Khunti and matter was fixed on 23.03.2020 for evidence ‘before charge’. 32. However, in the meantime, Covid – 19 Pandemic started and the case remained pending on 04.06.2020 / 07.04.2021, 17.07.2021 /23.11.2021, 24.01.2022 / 23.04.2022, 14.07.2022 and 18.08.2022. However, on 18.08.2022, the complainant examined on witness, namely, Ajay Kumar who was also cross – examined and discharged on the same date. Further, the (2026:JHHC:5582) 11 documents were marked as Exbt. – 1 to Exbt. - 4 respectively as mentioned below:- I. Exhibit – 1 is Memo No. 919 dated 21.08.2015 sent by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to the complainant Ajay Kumar by which Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi has sent certain information to the complainant –Opposite Party No. 2 in light of his application dated 23.07.2015 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. It also contains the application purportedly sent by one Abha Sinha, Social Activist, Child Line, Lalpur to officer in- charge Argoda P.S. making complaint against the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 for assaulting a boy aged about 8 to 10 years and also a Sheet dated 10.04.2013 issued from the office of advisor to Sri. K. Vijay Kumar and also letter dated 21.04.2013 sent by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to officer in- charge Argoda P.S. inclosing the letter of one Raj Kumar, OSD to Advisor to Sri. K. Vijay Kumar and also enclosing the letter allegedly sent by purported applicant Smt. Abha Sinha, Social Activist (Child Line) and also letter dated 27.04.2013 sent by Sub – Inspector, Argoda P.S. to Sr. Superintendent of Police by which it has been mentioned that allegation against the complainant was found baseless and false and complainant fully cooperated with the Police during verification of charges leveled against him. II. Exhibit – 2 is letter no. 885, dated 12.05.2017 sent by Public Informant Officer – cum Labour (2026:JHHC:5582) 12 Superintendent, Ranchi to the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 Ajay Kumar sending certain information to him in light of his application dated 05.05.2017 by which letter no. 985 dated 01.07.2015 sent by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi has been enclosed by informing that no child labour was found working in the house of the complainant Ajay Kumar and also letter no. 25.06.2015 sent by District Coordinator (Child Line), Ranchi to Sri Rajesh Prasad, Assistant Labour Commissioner with regard to the existence of Social Activist Smt. Abha Sinha by which it has been informed by Ms. Suradha Kachhap, the District Coordinator, (Child Line), Xavier’s Institute of Social Service (in short XISS), Puralia Road, Ranchi by which it has been informed that there is no female employee working in the name of Smt. Abha Sinha in their Child Line group and they have got no branch or institute in the name of Child Line in Lalpur. Hence, it is not possible to give any information regarding said Smt. Abha Sinha. Letter dated 29.06.2015 written by one Vikas Kumar who is said to be working in the house of the complainant with his mother along with his Aadhar Card are enclosed. III. Exhibit -3 contains letter dated 16.04.2013 sent by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi to Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi by which it has been found that on the basis of the complaint made on 05.04.2013 the house of Ajay Kumar was searched (2026:JHHC:5582) 13 with regard to atrocities committed by him on the Child Labour Vikas. But during course of inquiry, Sri Vikas was not found present. It was also informed that said child lives with Ajay Kumar as being his co- villager and the said child is admitted to local school. However, due to complaint made by the petitioner, he had sent the child Vikas and his mother to Patna, Bihar and presently no person in the name of Vikas is working there. It also contain letter no. 633 dated 24.07.2011 sent by Forest Range Officer, Timber Depot Region, Ranchi to DFO Division of Forest Officer Ranchi, East Forest Division by which it has been informed that false complaint has been made against the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 regarding theft of Gavion. It also contain letter no. 1549 dated 13.07.2011 sent by Conservator of Forest Ranchi, to DFO, East Division, Ranchi and some other correspondences between DFO, Ranchi to Conservator, Ranchi of various dates. IV. Exhibit – 4 is letter no. 219, dated 02.06.2017 seny by Director – cum -Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Child Protection Centre, Women, Child Development and Social Security, Jharkhand Ranchi, to one Manoj Kumar Madhukar, Public Information Officer – cum – Section Officer, Social Welfare Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi enclosing the information received from JHALSA which was addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. (2026:JHHC:5582) 14 33. Thereafter, on 28.09.2022 evidence of the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 was closed and the case was fixed on 15.12.2022 for framing of charges. However, the case remained pending for framing of charges on several dates and then the petitioner filed discharge petition under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2023. 34. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2023, the learned S.D.J.M. has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. The learned trial court, while rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner, has also observed that there are sufficient materials for framing of charges under Section 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 35. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revision application on 19.09.2023 by challenging the impugned order dated 05.08.2023. 36. However, during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision No. 1255 of 2023, charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code on 10.07.2024 by the learned S.D.J.M. 37. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred I.A. No. 8576 of 2024 before this Court in the instant Criminal Revision No. 1255 of 2023 for addition of prayer by challenging the order framing charges dated 10.07.2024 and the said I.A. No. 8576 of 2024 was allowed on 30.08.2024 by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by Hon’ble Justice Ratnakar Bhengda (as His Lordship then was) had also stayed the further proceeding pending before the learned S.D.J.M. in connection with Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2017. (2026:JHHC:5582) 15 Thereafter, the interim order was extended by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Justice Ratnakar Bhengda) on 13.09.2024 and then the matter was placed before this Court in the month of April as such, the matter has finally been disposed of today. Even this Court had also extended the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 30.08.2024, vide order dated 01.05.2025 and 01.07.2025. 38. The petitioner has taken one other plea also that this is second complaint and the Opposite Parties has suppressed the fact of filing earlier complaint case however, this Court is not convinced towards the submission of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as this submission amounts to the defence of the petitioner which cannot be looked into at this stage. Even filing of the said Complaint Case No. 2420 of 2014 has been discussed by the learned Trial Court below in the impugned order dated 05.08.2023. Thereafter the learned court below has observed that the allegation leveled against the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 by the accused petitioner were found frivolous by several authorities and the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2 has been subjected to harassment and humiliation and charges against him were found false and baseless. Even, the learned court below has observed that there is sufficient material for framing charges against the petitioner under Section 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and Sri Praveen Oraon, learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, has rejected the discharge petition. 39. However, it reveals from I.A. No. 8576 of 2024 that charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code by another Judicial Officer, namely, (2026:JHHC:5582) 16 Rupam Smiriti Topno, then learned S.D.J.M. had framed charges under Section 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the revisionist petitioner. 40. Thus, due to change of office of the learned Trial Court, charges were framed for the offence under Sections 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Sections 419 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code as was observed by the Predecessor of the learned trial court below. 41. However, after going through the averments made in the complaint petition and the documents as discussed above which were filed on behalf of the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M. while framing charges under Section 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code as Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code relates to the act of forgery for the purpose of harming reputation whereas Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code relates to punishment for defamation. 42. This Court at this stage refrains itself from giving any finding in the merit of this case as it will amount to prejudice the case of both the sides before the learned trial court below on the merit of framing of charges. However, this Court finds that it is discretion of the learned court below to frame charges under an appropriate provisions of law against any accused person in light of the provisions of Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. by framing charges against him. 43. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the meticulous examination of statement of witnesses, are not required to be evaluated and the probative value of the statements of the witnesses of the complainant, is not required to (2026:JHHC:5582) 17 be examined meticulously for the purpose of holding a mini trial. The Court has to broadly see as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not against the accused person? 44. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused – person cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 45. 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 page 127 and Para-25 of the said judgment is 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.” 46. 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 (2026:JHHC:5582) 18 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.” 47. 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 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).” 48. 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 (2026:JHHC:5582) 19 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. 49. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjeet Mittal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2926, at Para Nos. 20 and 21 as follows:- “Para No. 20:- This court in CBI v. Aryan Singh reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 379 has held that, “10. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and / or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. At the stage of discharge and / or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. Para No. 21:- Thus, at this stage, we do not deem it necessary to delve into the discussion of whether there is sufficient evidence to fulfil the requirements of particular sections of Penal Code, 1860 charged against the respondents. The trial court shall decide whether charges are proved or not in due course. Given the statements of witnesses, suspicious circumstances around death of deceased and gravity of offense, we are of the opinion that the trial needs to be conducted to reach to the truth. Criminal proceedings against accused Respondent No. 2 to 5 shall be thus continued.” 50. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, it is evident that the order passed by the learned trial court suffers from no (2026:JHHC:5582) 20 illegality. Hence, the impugned order dated05.08.2023 passed by Sri Praveen Oraon, learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2017 is hereby upheld. 51. In view of the discussion made above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed and interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.08.2024 and on subsequent dates continued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e., on 13.09.2024 and further continued by this Court on 01.05.2025 as mentioned above, stand vacated. 52. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 1255 of 2023 is, hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Aditi NAFR Uploaded on:- 28.02.2026