2026:JHHC:21420 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1057 of 2017 -------- Suresh Prasad Sah, Son of Late Moti Sah, Resident of House No. 2/9, Elite Tower, Dindi Basti Road, Adityapur-1, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist. – Seraikella Kharsawan ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pradip Kumar Mahato @ Chhabi Mahato, S/o Sri Kasi Nath Mahato, R/o Dindli Basti Road, Adityapur-1, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist. – Seraikella Kharsawan 3. Mahavir Prasad @ Mahavir Pd. Gupta, S/o Late Prahlad Rai Gupta, Bhatiya Basti, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, Dist.-East Singhbhum 4. Subhash Chandra Bhomik, S/o Late Naresh Chandra Bhaumik, R/o 5/703/A. B Sonari, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Dist. East Singhbhum 5. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, S/o Sri Raj Narayan Pandey, R/o 29/B, B- Block, Khuntadih, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Dist. East Singhbhum 6. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Sri Kedar Nath Pandey, R/o E/304/A Block, Khuntadih, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Dist. East Singhbhum …… Opp. Parties -------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Advocate For the State :Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 :Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Adv. For the O.P. No. 3 to 6 :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Priya, Adv. -------- Order No. 23/ Dated: 21st July, 2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP assisted by learned counsels appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the part of the order dated 26.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 349 of 2015 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court has summoned only Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 420 of the IPC while rest of the accused persons i.e. Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 6 have been discharged. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint petition was instituted against five accused persons but the learned trial Court after conducting enquiry into the complaint petition 2026:JHHC:21420 2 Cr. Revision No. 1057of 2017 and after conducting trial has summoned only one accused namely Pradip Kumar Mahato @ Chhabi Mahato (Opposite Party No. 2) and in spite of clear cut allegation in the complaint petition as well as in the evidence of witnesses, the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 have not been summoned. Therefore, impugned order is based upon non-consideration of materials available on record, which is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 4. Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsels appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this revision. 5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 6. It appears that complaint case was instituted by the complainant stating inter alia that land pertaining to Mouza Dindli, Ward No. 16, Plot No. 1208 (part), 1209 (part) total area six and half decimal belonged to complainant. The complainant entered into a development agreement on 21.11.2008 with Opposite Party No. 2 to develop the piece of land and raise a residential building and there was specific obligation upon the opposite party No. 2 to hand over four residential flats of 3 bedroom, 2 car parking, two two-wheeler parking on the proposed building to the petitioner but the same was not done. It is further alleged that after construction of the building, the opposite parties failed to hand over the possession of flats in terms of agreement although three flats were handed over to the petitioner in violation to the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further alleged that one flat being Flat No. 6/1 is on 6th Floor of the building and the map was even not approved by the competent authority and when the petitioner complained about the irregularities to the opposite parties and also insisted to comply the conditions of the agreement, then they started avoiding from their liabilities. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 has also sold out the piece of land using power of attorney in favour of opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 under memorandum of understanding wherein also the agreement between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 is 2026:JHHC:21420 3 Cr. Revision No. 1057of 2017 mentioned. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the complainant states that he has been cheated by the accused persons. 7. It further appears that the learned trial Court after conducting the enquiry recorded findings that the alleged agreement of development is in between complainant and the opposite party No. 2 Pradip Kumar Mahato @ Chhabi Mahato only, therefore, found sufficient material against him and issued summon for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 8. Since all allegations are centered on the opposite party No. 2 and the agreement is also in between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2, therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed, however, the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the lawful grievance against other persons, at the proper stage of the proceedings, if there are sufficient evidence. 9. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 21.07.2026 Basant Uploaded on 22/07/2026