(2026:JHHC:21179) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 3011 of 2023 Mamta Upadhyay Lal, aged about 60 years, w/o Pradeep Michael Lal, resident of Flat No. 1207 – A, Tower 2, Panchsheel Wellington, Crossings Republik, PO & PS – Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201016. … … …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Rakesh Choubey, aged about ---- years, son of late Y.N. Choubey, resident of Plot No. 2285, Bharat Ekta Co-operative Society, PO & PS – Sector -12, Bokaro – 827012, Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kamlesh Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate ------ PRESENT 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1572 of 2019 including the cognizance Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 166A, 167, 175, 176, 177, 182, 193, 195A, 196, 204, 406, 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 469, 471, 500, 34 of the (2026:JHHC:21179) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Indian Penal Code along with Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993 inter alia against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of this case is that the complainant retired from the service of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour on 30.11.2013. After retirement, the complainant settled down and has been living in Bokaro since 08th December, 2013. During his service in the year 2010, the complainant was posted as Regional Labour Commissioner, Central Government at Kanpur in the state of Uttar Pradesh. One of the Labour Inspector conducted an inspection of the Medical College and Hospital of ESIC and found violation of labour law and sought for approval of the complainant for issuing notice, the complainant granted the same. The Labour Inspector issued notice to the employer engaged in the said project of construction of medical college and hospital. The Secretary of Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, summoned the complainant to Delhi. At that time the accused no. 4 of the Protest –cum- Complaint Petition, namely, P.C. Chaturvedi was the secretary in Ministry of Labour. The said accused no. 4 of the Protest-cum- Complaint Petition told the complainant to tell his staff to withdraw the notice issued or else the complainant will be ruined by the accused no. 4 and accused no. 4 also alleged that the complainant and his inspector, are thieves and mischievous persons. The complainant did not agree for withdrawal of the notice. After about 4 – 5 months, the accused no. 6 of the Protest – cum – Complaint Petition, namely, Ravi Mathur who was the Additional Secretary, summoned the complainant to Delhi and again told the complainant to stop the proceeding, or else the complainant will be ruined but the complainant did not agree. In November, 2013 though the (2026:JHHC:21179) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 complainant retired, but his entire retiral benefits were stopped because the accused no. 4 was unhappy with the complainant, and on the recommendation of the accused no. 4, the pension of the complainant was also stopped. 4. Since the complainant reported regarding life-style of his sub- ordinate, namely, K.K. Mallick who was the Assistant Labour Commissioner, so, K.K. Mallick and others entered into a conspiracy against the complainant and prepared forged documents and complained against the complainant. But in the enquiry, nothing wrong was found. One V.B. Singh was supporting these conspirators who was the director in Delhi, in the department of the complainant’s employer. Later on, the complainant could know that the accused no. 4 was having personal interest in the said project of construction of medical college and hospital and to save himself, he got forged documents prepared by the co-accused persons and on the basis of the forged documents, implicated the complainant. For the benefit of accused no. 4, six thousand crores of the government money were wasted; for which CBI inquiry was going on vide three preliminary enquiries, the number of which has been mentioned in the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation. 5. Though there is a clear order of the C.V.C. (Central Vigilance Commission) that no action can be taken on the basis of allegation based on forged document but at the time of preparing the forged document against the complainant, a proposal was made by the accused persons of the case in which earlier Vigilance Clearance Certificate, Integrity Beyond Doubt Certificate and No Minor/Major Penalty Pending Certificate issued in favour (2026:JHHC:21179) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 of the complainant was suppressed and also by suppressing no action was proposed and contemplated or was pending against him and the accused persons wilfully and deliberately concealed and suppressed the facts and documents which were existing prior to the issuance of Vigilance Angle Certificate. 6. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the accused persons misused their power and prepared a wrong tabular statement without taking the concurrence of C.V.O. (Central Vigilance Officer) and it was also suppressed that there are four other enquiry reports in which the complaints against the complainant were found forged and erroneous. After preparing the proposal, the accused person of the case, sent the proposal unofficially to the petitioner and obtained vigilance angle certificate / order. Because of the forged and fabricated documents, the accused persons stopped payment of Rs. 28,00,000/- and in this manner, the accused persons are committing financial harassment. Before retirement, all the clearance of the complainant has been made but even after that the money of this petitioner has been stopped. On the basis of the written report dated 13.12.2015 submitted by the complainant initially Bokaro Sector 12, P.S. Case No. 43 of 2015 was registered on 18.12.2015. Police took-up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, submitted Final Report on 31.08.2018 showing the case to be a mistake of fact. Thereafter, the complainant filed Protest – cum – Complaint Petition which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1572 of 2019 and on the basis of the Protest –cum – Complaint Petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of one inquiry witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, found (2026:JHHC:21179) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 prima facie case as already been indicated above and ordered issuing summons inter-alia to the petitioner. 7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that father of the Opposite Party No. 2 was the complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 has been implicated in this case only because his father was the complainant and died before filing of this Cr.M.P. 8. It is next submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and law-abiding person. The petitioner was posted as Director, Central Vigilance Commission since 2006 – 2013 and thereafter, she was reverted back to her parent department i.e., Indian Ordinance Factory Service. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a public servant and all the allegations made against her relate to discharge of her official function while working in the post of Director, Central Vigilance Commission. Hence, it is submitted that in this case, the sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was mandatory but since no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. having been obtained, the cognizance order is not sustainable in law. In this respect, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.C. Manju Raj & Others Vs. Seetaram reported in (2005) INSC 439, paragraph no. 36 of which reads as under:- “36. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the guiding principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallised. The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely, where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior sanction assumes (2026:JHHC:21179) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suneeti Toteja Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2005) Supreme SC 397, paragraph no. 29 of which reads as under:- “29. As per the aforementioned proposition, it is only to be seen if the accused public servant was acting in the performance of his/her official duties, and if the answer is in the affirmative, then prior sanction for their prosecution is a condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It is therefore largely a disputed question of fact here and not a question of law. However, this fact of appellant herein acting in her official capacity is not seriously contested by the respondents herein. In the instant case, the appellant had filed the counter affidavit and interacted with the complainant in her capacity of a Presiding Officer, ICC. The correctness of the allegations with regard to the conduct of the appellant need not be ascertained herein by this Court but the fact that she was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her. The Magistrate therefore erred in proceeding to take cognizance against the appellant without the sanction for prosecution being received from BIS, and since BIS has eventually refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, the prosecution against the appellant could not have been sustained.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was admittedly exercising her official duties in good faith while working as Director, Central Vigilance Commission, in the light of Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, there is a specific bar that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Commission, the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner, the Secretary or any staff of the commission in respect of anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under (2026:JHHC:21179) 7 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 the Act. Section 16 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, categorically states that every staff of the commission shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this prosecution of the petitioner and the cognizance order is in violation of Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. It is next submitted that on the basis of the complaint and an enquiry against the complainant with respect to his misconduct was conducted by the concerned ministry i.e., the Ministry of Labour and Employment and, thereafter, a reference was made to the Chief Vigilance Officer with the approval of the Competent Authorities in the said ministry to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in May, 2012 proposing initiation of major disciplinary proceeding against the complainant. As per the extant procedure, a draft charge-sheet / memorandum of charges along with relevant annexures, were enclosed therewith. The said reference was examined by the petitioner and she submitted the same on 30.05.2012 to the concerned higher authority of the commission. Thereafter, the reference was examined and approved by the Additional Secretary concerned and Vigilance Commissioner concerned as per the extant procedure. Finally the approval of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was accorded on 04.06.2012 and after approval of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as per extant procedure, the petitioner in exercise of her official duty, issued letter dated 05.06.2012 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, observing therein that after examining the reference of Ministry Of Labour And Employment, the Commission in agreement with the Ministry Of Labour And Employment would advise initiation of major disciplinary proceedings (2026:JHHC:21179) 8 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 against the complainant. Subsequently, the memorandum of charges was issued along with statement of Article of Charges and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour against the complainant in the year 2012 by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. While the departmental proceeding against the complainant was pending, the complainant superannuated from service. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, none of the offence in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, has found prima facie case inter alia against the petitioner is made out against the petitioner. As there has been no agreement or meeting of minds with the co-accused persons whatsoever involving the petitioner, for the purpose of commission of any alleged illegal act by illegal means nor the petitioner has disobeyed any law or direction thereunder, even if the entire allegations are considered to be true, still the offence of criminal conspiracy is not made of against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not indulged in any defamation whatsoever. It is next submitted that in the absence of any material on record to suggest that at any point of time, the petitioner has intentionally fabricated or given any false evidence or that the petitioner has threatened any person to give false evidence or the petitioner has corruptly used or attempted to use as true any evidence which he knew to be false and fabricated; as such, no offence punishable under Section 193, 195A, 196 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is then submitted that Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code deals with destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence and from the entire materials which has been collected either (2026:JHHC:21179) 9 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 during the course of investigation or as mentioned in Protest – Cum – Complaint Petition or evidence of the enquiry witnesses, does not show that at any point of time the petitioner has destroyed any document, so offence is also not made out. 11. It is next submitted that there is no whisper whatsoever in the F.I.R. with respect to loss of monetary amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- and all of sudden the same has come up for the first time in the complaint petition. But there is no allegation against the petitioner of entrustment of any money or inducing anyone to part with any money and because of absence of such essential ingredient, the offence punishable under Section 406, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out. 12. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery of any specific document or creating any false document and in the absence of the same, the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 469, 474, 471 are not made out and Section 464 is not a penal provision of law rather it defines what a false document is. 13. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have intention to cheat right at the inception but it is the admitted case even of the complainant that the petitioner has only acted in discharge of her official duties only after the reference of initiating major penalty was made to the Central Vigilance Commission by the employer the Department of the complainant and in view of such facts of the case the question of the petitioner playing deception since the beginning does not arise. It is further submitted that otherwise also, the offence of cheating as provided under (2026:JHHC:21179) 10 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that all the acts or omissions took place at New Delhi and none of any act allegedly committed by the petitioner or anyone else has taken place at Bokaro, so, the Court at Bokaro, has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences no part of which ever took place in any part of Bokaro. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 14. Learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that the accused persons by colourable exercise of their power entered into the conspiracy and framed and manufactured file noting and documents and forwarded the same in order to achieve their goal. It is next submitted that the petitioner has deliberately ignored the instructions and guidelines of C.V.C. 15. It is next submitted that the wrong noting of the file resulted in stoppage of retiral benefits to the complainant and the same amounts to criminal conspiracy. It is next submitted that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not required for the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case. It is next submitted that when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, it cannot be said that such public servant has acted in discharge of his official duties. It is next submitted that all the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case are in-fact being made out, if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their (2026:JHHC:21179) 11 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 entirety. It is next submitted that in exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot embark upon as enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness of the allegations. It is next submitted that the petitioner cannot claim good faith because of conscious violation of C.V.C. circular and mandatory Tabular format of 2008. It is next submitted that taking action on complaint without C.V.C. concurrence; when the C.V.O. recommendation is missing, constitute a direct violation of mandatory administrative law. Hence, the same amounts to disobeyance of law, with intent to cause injury to a person, which is punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the “nod” given by the petitioner was not an isolated administrative error but a link in a chain of conspiracy and the Vigilance Commissioner though specifically posed a query to the petitioner about the business angles, but instead of answering, the petitioner gave the “nod” for major Penalty proceedings, vide letter dated 05.06.2012. It is next submitted that the conspiracy must be inferred from the conduct of the party because direct evidence is rarely available in case of conspiracy. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioner of bypassing the mandatory tabular format of 2008 as well as non-availability of the C.V.O. recommendation proves the meeting of minds of the petitioner with the disgruntled co-accused persons, to trap the complainant. It is next submitted that the act of the petitioner in processing a file built on a fabricated document and manufactured note-sheets by endorsing a fraudulent file in which the proceedings are initiated without reasonable or probable cause and with malicious intent as genuine for the purpose of Rule – 14 enquiry amounts to commission of an offence. It is next submitted that the petitioner (2026:JHHC:21179) 12 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 facilitated the cheating of the government exchequer and caused injury to the officer- who is the original complainant and by opening a gate for fake complaint, the petitioner is the primary enabler of the offence. Hence, it is submitted that since all the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate has in fact been made out, hence, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 16. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:- (i). The accused is a public servant. (ii). He disobeyed any express direction of law and he disobeyed it knowing and he knew or intended that it cause injury or likely to cause injury to others. 17. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is that a reference of Ministry of Labour and Employment seeking first stage advise of the Central Vigilance Commission for initiating major penalty proceedings against the complainant, who was the then Regional Labour Commissioner, was received in the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioner as Director, gave the note that eight different charges which were levelled against the complainant, as shown in para no. 2 of the said notes, goes to show that the misconduct attributed to the complainant does not appear to have any dishonest overturn and under such circumstances, disciplinary action against the complainant could have been initiated by the Ministry without referring the matter to the commission for its advice. The said note of the petitioner was then placed before the Additional Secretary in (2026:JHHC:21179) 13 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 the Central Vigilance Commission and he has expressed the view that the charges levelled against the complainant herein, at serial no. – III, V and VIII contained vigilance aspects, and approved the note. The matter was then placed before the next higher officer in the hierarchy being Vigilance Commissioner and he approved the proposal of the learned Additional Secretary but additionally he has mentioned what is ‘Vigilance Angle’, “Mamta” (meaning thereby the petitioner herein) is not clear on this and put a question mark but ultimately the Central Vigilance Commissioner has approved the said note and after the approval of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the petitioner in capacity of Director, has intimated the Ministry of Labour And Employment that after examining the reference of Ministry of Labour And Enforcement, the commission in agreement with Ministry of Labour And Employment, advised initiation of Major Penalty Proceeding against the complainant. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that when the note of the petitioner was approved by three other superior officers, it cannot be a case of disobeying any express direction of law and that too knowingly; which are the two essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the same is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. Now coming to the next offence in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate being offence punishable (2026:JHHC:21179) 14 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 166A has three different links, which has been contained in three different clauses (a) – (c). So far as the Clause -(a) of Section 166A is concerned, the essential ingredients are:- (i). The accused is a public servant. (ii). He disobeyed any express direction of law. (iii). He did it knowingly. (iv). The direction of law prohibiting the public officer from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter. 20. The essential ingredients of Clause –b, are:- (i). The accused is a public servant. (ii). He disobeyed any direction of the law. (iii). He did it willingly to the prejudice to any person. (iv). The direction of law in this regard, regulates the manner in which the said public servant shall conduct investigation. 21. So far as it relates to Clause – (c), the essential ingredients are:- (i). The accused is a public servant. (ii). He failed to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. in relation to offences mentioned in Clause (c). 22. Now in this case Clause – (c) is ruled out and so far as Clause – (a) and (b) of Section 166A is concerned, as this Court has already held that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, they do not amount to disobeying any express direction of law or disobeying it knowingly, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence punishable under Section 166 A is not made out. 23. So far as the offence punishable Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (2026:JHHC:21179) 15 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 (i). The accused was a public servant. (ii). The accused was given charge for preparation or translation of any document or electronic record. (iii). He framed or prepared or translated documents or electronic record incorrectly. (iv). He did it knowingly. (v). He did it knowingly that it would cause injury to others. Now coming to the facts of the case, since there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was given the charge for preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 24. So far as the offence punishable under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused legally was bound to produce the documents or electronic records that was summoned by the public servant. (ii). Accused intentionally omitted to produce the same. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was ever summoned to produce any document or electronic record by any public servant. In absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. (2026:JHHC:21179) 16 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 25. So far as the offence punishable under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused is legally bound to furnish information to any public servant. (ii). The accused has the required information with him. (iii). He intentionally omitted to given such notice or information. (iv). Such notice or information was required for the purpose of preventing commission of an offence or in order to the apprehension of an offender. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner omitted to give notice or information which she was legally bound to give and in absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 26. So far as the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused is legally bound to furnish the information to a public servant on a particular subject. (ii). The accused furnished information which to his knowledge or belief was false. (iii). Such information was required to prevent the commission of offence or apprehend the offender. Now coming to the fact of this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner was legally bound to furnish such information to any public servant on a particular subject and submitted a false information. In absence (2026:JHHC:21179) 17 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 of the same, the offence punishable under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 27. So far as the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused gave some information to a public servant. (ii). Such information was false. (iii). The accused knew or had reason to believe that such information was false. (iv). He did so intentionally to cause public servant to act upon such information which the public servant would not have acted upon to the injury or annoyance of any person. Now coming to the fact of this case, there is no allegation that the accused gave any information to any public servant which was false. In absence of the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 28. So far as the offence punishable 193 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused was legally bound to state the truth either by on oath or an express provision of law. (ii). The accused made the declaration in question. (iii). Such declaration or statement was made in any stage of judicial proceeding. (iv). The statement or declaration so made was false. (v). The accused knew it to be false or believed it to be false or did not believe to be true. (vi). The accused made such false statement intentionally. (2026:JHHC:21179) 18 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Now coming to the fact of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was legally bound to state the truth either by oath or an express provision of law or that she made a declaration of statement in any stage of judicial proceedings. In absence of the same, this Court has not hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. 29. So far as the offence punishable under Section 195A is concerned, the essential ingredients of the same are that (i) The accused threatened another person with any injury to his person, reputation or property either himself or to any person in which he is interested; and (ii) The same was done with an intent to cause that person to give false evidence. Now coming to the fact of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner ever threatened anyone to give any false information. Hence, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioner. 30. So far as the offence punishable under Section under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the same are as under:- (i). The accused corruptly uses or attempted to use as true or genuine any evidence. (ii). Any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated. (2026:JHHC:21179) 19 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Now coming to the fact of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner used as true or genuine evidence or any evidence which she knew to be false or fabricated, and in absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 31. So far as the offence punishable under Section 204 of the India Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offences are as under:- (i). The accused secreted or destroyed the documents or electronic record or obliterated or rendered illegible the whole or any part of such document or record. (ii). The accused was legally bound to produce the same as evidence in a court of justice or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant. (iii). The accused did so because he has been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for the said purpose. Now coming to the fact of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of having secreted or destroyed the document or electronic record or obliterated or rendered illegible the whole or any part of such document or record and in absence of these essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 32. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (2026:JHHC:21179) 20 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 (i). There must be an entrustment and (ii). there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of legal direction or any legal contract. As has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. Now coming to the fact of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment against the petitioner or dishonest misappropriation entrusted property. In absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 33. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence of cheating are as under:- (i). The accused voluntarily or dishonestly induced the complainant. (ii). He did so for delivery of wrong property either to the accused or some other person. (iii). He intentionally induced the complainant to do a thing which he would not do or omit to do the thing which he would do if he were not so deceived and such act or omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to his body, mind, reputation or property. Now coming to the fact of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving the complainant. On the other hand even there is no allegation that the complainant ever came across the petitioner face to face or had any occasion to interact with the complainant in any manner nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing the complainant to deliver any property to anyone. (2026:JHHC:21179) 21 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still neither the offence punishable under section 417 nor the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 34. So far as Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is not a penal provision of law rather the same defines how a false document is made. Hence, certainly the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed a grave error in taking the cognizance of a section of law which is not a penal provision of law. 35. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, are concerned, all of them require forgery to be the essential ingredients and for forgery the essential ingredients are:- (i). The accused prepared a false document or electronic record. (ii). He did it with the false meaning of written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit. (iii). The document or electronic record were prepared dishonestly or fraudulently. (iv). He did it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to another. 36. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner prepared any false document or electronic record. In absence of the same, none of the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. A submission was made by the Opposite Party No. 2 that though individually the petitioner has not committed the said offence, but in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person and in furtherance of (2026:JHHC:21179) 22 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 the common intention with the co-accused person, she has committed such offence. 37. Now coming to the criminal conspiracy angle, the punishment for which has been provided under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the essential ingredients are: - (i). An agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. (ii). In doing so, the accused either did or caused to be done. (a). An illegal act or (b). An act which is not in itself illegal but by illegal means. (iii). Such an act done or caused to be done was an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. (iv). If the act so done was not an offence than an overt act had been done by one or more of the parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. 38. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation that the co- accused persons who were claimed to be the subordinates of the complainant in his place of posting, had ever came in contact with the petitioner before preparing a proposal based on forged documents. In absence of such allegations of rest of the accused persons ever coming in contact with the petitioner at the time or prior to creation of alleged false document by co- accused persons certainly Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be pressed into service to implicate the petitioner for the alleged acts of the co-accused persons; in the facts of the case. So, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, cannot be implicated in the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code even with the aid of Section 120B or Section 34 of the Act. (2026:JHHC:21179) 23 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 39. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i). The accused made or published any imputation concerning any person. (ii). Such imputation was made by words either spoken or written with intent to be read or by signs or by visible representation. (iii). Such imputation must have been made with intent to harm or with knowledge or believe that it will harm the reputation of person concerned. as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of John Thomas Vs. K. Jagadeesan reported in (2001) 6 SCC 30. Now coming to the facts of this case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of making or publishing any imputation concerning the complainant rather the imputations were made by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. 40. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner, are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 41. So far as the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993 is concerned, the same provides for penalty for the contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and 8 of the said Act. Section 4 prohibits any person from taking or cause to be taken out of India, any public records without prior approval of the Central Government. (2026:JHHC:21179) 24 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 Now there is no allegation against the petitioner of taking or cause to be taken out of India any of the public records, so the question of violation of Section 4 does not arise. 42. Section 8 of the Public Records Act, 1993 prohibits destruction of Public Record otherwise than the manner and subject to such conditions as prescribed by the said act. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of destroying or disposal of any public record and in absence of the same, it cannot be said that there is violation of Section 8 of the Public Records Act and in absence of any allegations or contravention of either Section 4 or Section 8 of the Public Records Act, 1993, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993 is not made out. 43. So far as the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner regarding the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, no doubt, it is a settled principle of law as has been discussed above that if there exists a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is attracted. 44. Now coming to the fact of this case, from the allegations made against the petitioner, this Court has no doubt that the petitioner committed the alleged act in exercise of her official duties as a public servant, so, it is a fit case where the protective umbrella under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is attracted and the cognizance having been taken by the learned Magistrate (2026:JHHC:21179) 25 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 without the sanction for prosecution as envisaged under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. on this score also, the cognizance of offence, is bad in law. 45. Now coming to the submissions of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner regarding Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 is concerned, which reads as under:- (i). The same prohibits and in prosecution or legal proceeding inter alia against any staff of the commission in respect of anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act. 46. Certainly, the petitioner acted in discharge of her duties as the Director, Central Vigilance Commission and apparently under good faith so the act of the learned Magistrate of taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner for the act done in good faith by overlooking the provisions of Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 also renders the cognizance order, not sustainable in law. 47. So far as the last submission of learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the Courts at Bokaro has no territorial jurisdiction, is concerned, certainly all the acts alleged has been committed by the petitioner at New Delhi. Even the criminal conspiracy or the alleged furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused person was not done in Bokaro. So, under such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered view that the learned Judicial Magistrate at Bokaro, lacks territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, as not even a portion of the alleged offences has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, so, on this score also, the cognizance is bad in law. (2026:JHHC:21179) 26 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 48. In view of the discussions made above, since the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, has committed grave illegality in finding prima facie case for the offence as already mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment against the petitioner and has issued summons to her, so, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1572 of 2019 including the cognizance Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Borako, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 166A, 167, 175, 176, 177, 182, 193, 195A, 196, 204, 406, 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 469, 471, 500, 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993 inter alia against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 49. 49. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1572 of 2019 including the cognizance Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Borako, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bokaro, has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 166A, 167, 175, 176, 177, 182, 193, 195A, 196, 204, 406, 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 469, 471, 500, 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993 inter alia against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 50. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (2026:JHHC:21179) 27 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023 51. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., interim order, if any, is vacated. 52. Registry is directed to inform the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th July, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On - 22/07/2026