( 2026:JHHC:3089 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2537 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2537 of 2023 ------ Mr. Vijay Kumar Grover aged about 48 years, S/o Sh. Madan Lal Grover R/o 26 Mohyal Colony, P.O. + P.S.-Sector-40, Jharsa, Dist.- Gurugram-122001, State-Haryana. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Anurag Tiwary S/o Ashok Kumar Tiwary R/o H.No.-29, Road No.-2, P.O.-MGM Medical College, P.S.-Sakchi, Dimna Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831018. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.20 of 2016 including the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and also to quash the order dated 31.05.2018 ( 2026:JHHC:3089 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2537 of 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.195 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur dismissed the criminal revision which was directed against the said order dated 30.03.2016 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.20 of 2016. 3. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.(Cr.) No.213 of 2018, but the same has been dismissed and after about 5 years, this Cr.M.P. has been filed with the self-same prayer. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Director of ABW Infrastructure Limited has cheated by deceiving the complainant by making him believe that if he will pay Rs.2,69,00,000/-; then he will get alluring returns and subsequently, fraudulently and dishonestly induced him to part with Rs.2,69,00,000/- and though the petitioner promised to repay the same, but the cheques issued by the petitioner and the co-accused persons were dishonored. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur considering the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order against the petitioner. The petitioner is absconding till now. Even after dismissal of W.P.(Cr.) No.213 of 2018 for default with the self-same prayer by this Court on 23.10.2018; the ( 2026:JHHC:3089 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2537 of 2023 petitioner did not think it fit, though knowing pretty well that summoning order has been issued against him, to appear before the trial Court for about three years. Instead of appearing before the trial court, the petitioner filed this Cr.M.P. in 2023 with the self-same prayer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that since there is no specific allegations against the petitioner of having any specific role in commission of the offence, hence, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt & Others vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 and in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited and Others reported in (2022) 15 SCC 430 as also the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Rajiv Tulsiyan vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2023:JHHC:35431 and in the case of Ruchika Kakar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024:JHHC:18770, the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.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 made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that this is a frivolous petition and the conduct of the petitioner who is absconding for more than a decade and as the self-same prayer in W.P.(Cr.) No.213 of 2018 has admittedly been dismissed by this Court; hence the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was the ( 2026:JHHC:3089 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2537 of 2023 Director of the Company, which committed the offence and the petitioner was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company and thus responsible and accountable for the affairs of the company, for having committed the offence and which fact is not even disputed by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. So far as the revisional order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur is concerned, the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no illegality in the said order. It is lastly submitted by them that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. 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 it is the admitted case of the complainant that for the self-same prayer, the petitioner approached this court and filed W.P.(Cr.) No.213 of 2018 which was dismissed by this Court, but even then the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and after absconding for five years has again filed this Cr.M.P. with the self-same prayer. 10. Since, the self-same prayer of the petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.213 of 2018, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the second petition with the self-same ground and for the self-same relief cannot be considered by this Court ( 2026:JHHC:3089 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2537 of 2023 only because a different provision of law has been invoked for filing this Cr.M.P.. Otherwise, also there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being the Director of the Company which committed the offence and the petitioner was looking after day-to-day affairs of the company and thus responsible and accountable for the affairs of the company, which fact has nowhere been denied in this Cr.M.P., the petitioner is squarely liable for the offence of committing cheating and criminal breach of trust of huge amount of money and because of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur in passing the impugned order, warranting the interference of this court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05th of February, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 17/02/2026