[2026:JHHC:13016] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 1. Debabrata Banerjee @ Devabrat Banerjee, aged about 36 years, S/o. Daibaki Kumar Banerjee, R/o: Shiv Subala 301-A, Chira Gora, Biinod Nagar More, Near Chira Gora State Bank, Hirapur, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S: Hirapur, Dist: Dhanbad, State; Jharkhand. 2. Dablu Ranjan Hazra, aged about 53 years, S/o: Chittaranjan Hazra, R/O 93,94, Block-D, Bhatriya colony, P.O & P.S: Sahebganj, State: Jharkhand. 3. Sanjay Kumar Biswas @ Sanjay Biswas, aged about 53 years, S/O:Late Samal Lal Biswas, R/O; Bank Colony, Pakur, P.O + P.S Pakur, District: Pakur, State: Jharkhand. 4. Ajit Kumar Dutta, aged about 68 years, S/o. Late Satyendra Lal Dutta, R/o: Netaji Subash Road, Near Monar Dokan, North Rabindrapally, PO & P.S Nonachnadanpukur, District Kolkata, State: West Bengal. 5. Sankar Das, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Moloyendu Das, R/O, 16/1, Baburam SIL Lane, Bowbazar, PO & P.S; Bowbazar, District, Kolkata, State: West Bengal. 6. Shiwanshu Dasgupta@Shivanshu Dasgupta, aged about 54 years, S/o. Late Benu Dasgupta, R/O: 301, Dasgupta Mansion, 6 Hazaribagh Road, Opposite Santevita Hospital, Tharpakhna, Ranchi, P.O. G.PO, PS: Tharpakhna, District: Ranchi, State: Jharkhand. 7. Sri Bibekananda Pradhan @Vivekanand Pradhan, aged about 59 years, S/o. Deobhanj Pradhan, R/O Penala, P.O: Gadaguda, P.S. Kandhamal, District: Kandhamal, State: Orissa 8. Soumitra Chatterjee, aged about 51 years, S/o. late Shiva Prasad Chatterjee, R/O Dahiya Tola, Bartalla, Sahebganj, P.O+P.S: Sahebganj, District: Sahebganj, State: Sahebganj. 9. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Shrawan Kumar Saha, R/o Opp Dr. R.N Jha, 120 M.G Road, Near G.P.O, Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur, P.O: G.P.O, P.S: Bhagalpur, State: Bihar 10. Bibekananda Acharya @ Vivekanand Acharya, aged about 59 years, S/o. Late Padmanabha Acharya, R/o:Muchichipara, Kolkata, P.O & P.S: Kolkata, District: Kolkata, State: West Bengal ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o: Shri Ras Bihari Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o: Mohalla, Habibpur, P.O,P.S & District. Sahibganj, State: Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Raj, Adv. Ms. Akriti Shree, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad , Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : None [2026:JHHC:13016] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though notice was validly served upon the Opp. Party no. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the Opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the FIR being Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case no. 150 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/409/420/467/468/120 B of I.P.C., presently pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. 3. The brief fact of the case is that all the petitioners are / were officers of Life India Corporation which is a public sector undertaking. The complaint was filed by one advocate alleging therein that District Consumer Forum in a case has observed that some officers of the LIC have committed irregularities, hence, authorities were advised to take suitable action so that such type of irregularity may not occur in future. Consequent upon this, the LIC took action against Mr. D Shome who is not an accused of this complaint and who was posted as A.O. (DTC) in the then Branch Office, Saharsha , Bhagalpur, Division and in the Disciplinary Proceeding, he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him by the disciplinary authority and was imposed the penalty of reduction to minimum in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of the relevant regulation of LIC (Staff) Regulation, 1960. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint, there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners of committing any specific act but general allegation has been made that the authorities are trying to save the accused [2026:JHHC:13016] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 persons and did not disclose their names in their letter through which, the information was given under the Right to Information Act. There is general allegation that the petitioners have forged LIC cheques and used public money for their own illegal business without mentioning the cheque number, the amount of money involved. Further there is allegation that the petitioners have committed forgery and criminal breach of trust in respect of the property and money entrusted to them but there is no reference that in respect of which property and how much money the said alleged criminal breach of trust was committed nor the complaint discloses as to which is the document, in respect of which, the alleged forgery was committed. There is no reference in the said complaint regarding any application under section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the CrPC, having ever made by the complainant before filing the complaint petition nor the complaint is supported by any affidavit still, learned CJM Sahibganj referred the complaint to the police under section 156 (3) of CrPC; basing upon which Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case no. 150 of 2019 was registered. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Priynka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2015) 6SCC 297, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that a stage has come where application under section 156 (3) of the CrPC are to be supported by an affidavit, duly sworn in by the complainant besides there has to be an application under section 154 (1) and 154(3) of CrPC as the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of Babu Venkatesh and Ors. Vs. State of Kartnataka and Anr. passed in Cr. Appeal no. 252 of 2022, hence, it is submitted that since admittedly the petitioners at the time of the alleged commission of [2026:JHHC:13016] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 the offence were the public servants being the officers of LIC, the continuation of criminal investigation against them, for more than six years on a complaint which is not even supported by an affidavit, nor there is any compliance of section 154 (1)and 154(3) of CrPC on vague and vexatious allegations, which are general and omnibus in nature will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and since the investigation of the case is going on, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in appropriate cases, registration of the FIR under section 156(3) CrPC based on a complaint which is not supported by affidavit and in the complaint, there is no reference of any application having been made under Section 154 (1) or 154 (3) of CrPC, is a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case the undisputed fact remains that all the petitioners are / were the officers of the LIC and there is no specific allegation as to which offence, they have committed and the investigation of the case is going on for more than six years but the Final Report has not yet been submitted. Further, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners, in respect of which property or money, the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust and neither there is any allegation as to whom the petitioners cheated nor there is any specific allegation as to which forged documents have been made by the petitioners. 10. Under such facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding and the investigation for more than six years, in respect of the vague allegations, on the [2026:JHHC:13016] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2277 of 2022 basis of a complaint which is not even supported by an affidavit nor the provisions under Section 154 (1) and Section 153 (3) of the CrPC, has been complied with, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case, where FIR being Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case no. 150 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the FIR being Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case no. 150 of 2019, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1st May, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 14.05.2026