(2026:JHHC:20715) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1411 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1411 of 2025 ------ Kanchan Tiwary aged about 45 years, son of Late Janki Tiwary, resident of Private House, Near Housing Office, Road No. 13, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District- Saraikella-Kharsawan … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ruby Vikash, wife of Lalit Vikash, resident of 276/2-2, Road No.-8, Adityapur-2, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate Ms. Divya, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Adityapur P.S. Case No.199 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.949 of 2016 and also the order dated 10.07.2018 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police after completion of investigation and finding the allegations against the petitioner is to be true and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella. (2026:JHHC:20715) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1411 of 2025 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being a developer and builder, entered into the development agreement dated 22.10.2009 with the informant. An amended development agreement was also made between them on 15.07.2013. As per Clause 6 of the said amended development agreement, the builder was to hand over the flat to the informant before April, 2015 or else he was to pay compensation of Rs.5,500/- per month; but the petitioner did not pay the said compensation. As per Clause 7 of the said amended development agreement, 40% of the share of the constructed flat was to be given to the informant and the unit No.1 in the second-floor of 1290 sq. ft. and unit No.1 of the third-floor of 1290 sq. ft. which is in block No.1, Phase-3 was to be given to the informant but the petitioner keeping the informant in dark by adopting deceitful means induced the informant to execute power of attorney in his favour and resorted to forgery and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the informant with the intention of gaining unlawful advantage for himself. It is further alleged that the petitioner secretly sold the share of the informant to the co- accused persons by the registered sale-deed. It is also the case of the informant that the power of attorney executed by the informant in favour of the builder, authorizes the builder to sell but the builder is not entitled to the value of the flat etc. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the co- accused persons by entering into a planned conspiracy, has committed the purchase and sale of the flat. 4. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Adityapur P.S. Case No.199 of 2016 and took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police (2026:JHHC:20715) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1411 of 2025 submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate; as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the charge-sheet submitted in this case. It is next submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. It is next submitted that police after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner to be true in respect of each of the offences which have been mentioned in detail in the charge- sheet and basing upon the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate, has taken cognizance of the offence. It is further submitted that since filing of the copy of the charge-sheet would have made the lie resorted to by the petitioner exposed, hence, the petitioner has deliberately not filed the copy of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that since the impugned cognizance order is based on the charge-sheet which has been suppressed from this Court, therefore, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has made the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 10.07.2018 passed in connection with Adityapur (2026:JHHC:20715) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1411 of 2025 P.S. Case No.199 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.949 of 2016 which is based on the charge-sheet submitted by the police after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true; as mentioned in the charge- sheet. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has withheld the charge-sheet basing upon which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. In the absence of the copy of the charge- sheet before this Court, this Court is certainly not in a position to appreciate as to what are the contents of the charge-sheet and what are the materials collected during the investigation of the case, basing upon which the charge-sheet has been submitted and basing upon which the impugned cognizance order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. Hence, otherwise also since charge-sheet has already been submitted so, this is a fit case where the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella be given the opportunity of take a call regarding the merits of the case, at the time of consideration of framing of charge against the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of July, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 14/07/2026