Jharkhand High Court
Shivdani Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
(2025:JHHC:21758)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
Shivdani Prasad Sinha, aged about 74 years, son of Late Jang Bahadur
Singh, resident of Village Baruani, P.O. Baruani, P.S. Bhadour, District-
Patna, Bihar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shyam Babu Arya, S/o Late Kashinath Arya, R/o 634, Sector 3E, P.O. &
P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro ... Opposite Parties
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
1. Premchandra Singh @ Prem Chand Singh, aged about 71 years, son of
Birja Singh, resident of Plot No.746, Bari Cooperative, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
Sector 12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand
2. Jagdeo Prasad Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Falli Singh, resident
of Plot No.125, Bari Cooperative, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Sector 12, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shyam Babu Arya, S/o Late Kashinath Arya, R/o 634, Sector 3E, P.O. &
P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate (In both cases)
Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.-06/24)
Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.-362/24)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate (In both cases)
—–
12/05.08.2025 In both the cases, common question of facts and laws are involved and
in view of that, both these petitions are being heard together with consent of
the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the
cases, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha and Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the State in respective cases and Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2-informant in both cases.
3. In Criminal Revision No.06 of 2024, the prayer is made for setting-
aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief
-1-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.136/2019 arising out of Bokaro
Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 registered under Section 341/ 323/ 504/ 506/
406/ 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in that Court. In Criminal
Revision No.362 of 2024, the prayer is made for setting-aside the order dated
22.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro
in G.R. Case No.375/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case
No.83/2018 registered under Section 341/323/504/506/406/420/120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, pending in that Court.
Factual Matrix:
4. An FIR bearing Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No. 83/2018 was registered
against the office-bearers of the society and also against the advisor and the
allottee and purchaser of the Plot earlier allotted to the informant namely
Shyam Babu Arya, who has lodged a written complaint dated 17.09.2018
stating therein that he was a member of the Bari Co-operative Society and
had been allotted 10 decimals of land bearing Plot No.473 vide Lease Deed
dated 12.10.1987and was also handed over the Plot on which he had
constructed boundary wall by earth and soil, however due to ill health, the
informant was not able to start construction in the said plot. It was further
alleged that on 01.08.2018, the informant visited the office of Bari Co-
operative society to pay the due amount, however, was given a vague reply
by the employees and, thereafter, he had again visited the office on
04.08.2018 and was not given proper response and was abused by the
employee. It was also alleged that on 07.08.2018, the informant came to
know that the office bearers and the legal advisor had conspired and allotted
the plot of the informant to one Musafir Thakur and has also executed a Lease
-2-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
Deed dated 03.08.2018 with the new allottee and when he had contacted the
office bearer, they had assured that they would cancel the allotment in favour
of Musafir Thakur. It was further alleged that on 29.08.2018, the informant
was abused and threatened of dire consequence by the office bearers of the
society and, hence, he had lodged the instant FIR against the fraudulent
cancellation of the lease.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:
5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases
submits that in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2024, the petitioner is the Secretary
of Bari Co-operative Society and the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.362
of 2024 are the President and Vice President respectively of the said Society.
He submits that the said Co-operative Society is a registered body under the
Cooperative Society Act, 1935 and is being run and managed as per its bye-
laws. The office bearers of the Society are elected members and it has been
the collective decision of the General Body to cancel the allotment of the
allottee, who have defaulted and not constructed their houses as per the
terms and conditions of the allotment. He then elaborates his argument by
submitting that Plot No.473 was allotted to the informant-opposite party no.2,
namely, Sri Shyam Babu Arya through agreement for lease dated 12.10.1987
on certain terms and conditions which at Clause 9 stipulated that the allottee
shall complete the construction of at least half of the prescribed plinth area
within five years from the date of delivery, however, the concerned allottee
had never started the construction and had even defaulted in making
payments. He further submits that the allottees were provided sufficient
opportunity to construct the house and pay the amount to the society,
-3-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
however, the allottees had failed to perform their obligation under the
agreement and taking into account the safe guard to the plot and the violation
of the terms and conditions of allotment, a collective decision was taken by
the General Body on 26.03.2012 to cancel the agreement of such members
who had not commenced construction. He also submits that during 2012-13,
the present office bearers were not in the helm of affairs to run and manage
the said Co-operative Society and, therefore, the collective decision of the
predecessor in relation to cancellation of the Plot of the allottee, who have
not commenced the construction, has only been enforced by the present
elected body. He draws attention of the Court to Clause 9 of the agreement
and submits that the condition is made there that within five years of delivery
of possession, at least 50% of the plinth area is required to be constructed.
He further draws attention of the Court to Clause 15 of the said agreement
and submits that the provision is made therein that after reasonable
opportunity to show-cause, registration can be cancelled if Clause 9 is not
complied with. He further submits that Annexure-3 is the Minutes of the
Meeting dated 26.03.2012, wherein, the decision has been taken to cancel
the agreement of the persons, who have not started the work. By way of
inviting attention of the Court to Annexure-6 Series, he submits that notices
have also been issued to the informant and paper publication was also made
and, thereafter, registered deed of cancellation was executed, contained in
Annexure-8 and, thereafter, the amount received from the informant was also
returned back. To buttress this argument, he referred receipt of postal
endorsement, which has been brought on record at page 63 of the petition.
In these backgrounds, he submits that many opportunities have been
-4-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
provided to the allottees, however, they remained silent and, thereafter, the
Executive Committee took the decision to cancel the membership and lease
deed of two plots on 20.07.2017 including that of the informant, which was
approved by the General Body vide Resolution No.7 of AGM dated 20.07.2017.
He submits that the decision to cancel the allotment has been the collective
decision of the General Body duly approved in the A.G.M. and in view of that,
no criminality is made out and if any case is made out, that is civil in nature
and for that, criminal case has been instituted. He submits that even after a
lapse of 31 years, no construction was started and in view of that, all these
things have happened. He also submits that the petitioners herein have filed
the discharge petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned
Court, which was rejected. By way of drawing attention of the Court to
Annexure-10, which is the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Criminal Revision No.758 of 2023 with Criminal Revision No.760 of 2023,
dated 11.12.2023 and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has interfered with
the case of two of the accused persons who were said to be allottees and
advisor of the said Society and allowed those criminal revision applications
and they have also been discharged. On these grounds, he submits that the
impugned orders may kindly be set-aside and the petitioners may kindly be
discharged.
Arguments on behalf of the State:
6. Learned counsel for the State in both the cases jointly opposed the
prayer and submit that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned
orders. They further submit that there is allegation of assault and in view of
that, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. They also submit that
-5-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
both the petitions are fit to be dismissed.
Argument on behalf of opposite party no.2-informant:
7. Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 in both the
cases vehemently opposed the prayer made in the criminal revision petitions
and submit that notice has not been served upon the informant and the paper
publication was also not made in a popular local daily newspaper and in view
of that, all actions of the petitioners are vitiated. He submits that criminality
is made out. He submits that the police have also submitted charge-sheet
and other cases have also been filed against the petitioners and in view of
that, this Court may not discharge the petitioners herein. He submits that the
learned Court has rightly passed the impugned orders. On these grounds, he
submits that these petitions may kindly be dismissed.
Analysis:
8. It is an admitted position that the agreement was entered between the
said Co-operative Society and the informant on 12.10.1987. Clause 9 of the
agreement speaks as under:
“9. The Second Party shall complete the construction of at
least half of the minimum prescribed plinth area in the ground
floor within five years from the date of delivery of possession
of the plot by the First Party according to such plans and
specification as may be approved by the First Party and/or a
Local Authority, if there be any, in accordance with and
subject to the provision of such Building Bye-laws as may be
prescribed by the First Party and/or all such enactments,
rules and bye-laws as may be enforced by a Local Authority
for the time being.”
9. Clause 15 of the agreement stipulates as under:
“15. The First Party shall have right to re-enter and
resume possession of the plot, including the structures
thereon after paying compensation of the prevailing prices in
case of breach of any of the provisions of the deed or on
surrender by the allottee, by serving six months notice from
the either side in writing provided the First Party before taking
-6-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)any action under this clause must give reasonable
opportunity to show cause.”
10. By reading of the above two clauses simultaneously, it is crystal clear
that the conditions are made to remain in possession with regard to the
allotted plot and it has not been denied in course of the arguments by the
learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 that the construction
was required to be started within five years of allotment. Clause 9 of the
agreement clearly speaks that if within five years of allotment, 50% of the
plinth area in the ground floor is not completed, in light of Clause 15 the
agreement can be cancelled.
11. It is further admitted position that in the Annual General Meeting, the
decision was taken to cancel the allotment of those allottees, who have not
started the construction. It is averred in these criminal revision petitions that
after 31 years of allotment, the work was not started and that is also admitted
in the FIR. It is further not denied in the arguments of the learned counsel
for the informant-opposite party no.2 and State that the predecessors of the
present petitioners have taken decision pursuant to General Body meeting to
cancel the allotment and at that time, the petitioners were not the office
bearers of the said Co-operative Society.
12. In these backgrounds, the Court has to consider whether a criminal
case under the aforesaid sections can sustain against the petitioners or not.
In light of the agreement and clauses, it is crystal clear that if any case is
made out, that is civil in nature and if the informant was aggrieved with the
said decision, civil remedy was required to be taken, whereas, colour of
criminal case has been made.
13. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for
-7-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
wrongful restraint. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of
punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
speaks of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Section
506 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for criminal intimidation.
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of punishment for criminal
breach of trust. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code speaks of punishment of criminal conspiracy. The facts as stated herein
above clearly stipulate that the ingredients of the above sections are not made
out against the petitioners. The agreement has been cancelled by way of
registered deed of cancellation and, thus, the ingredient of voluntarily causing
hurt is not there. The intention to insult with intent to provoke breach of the
peace is also not made out as notice and paper publication are there. Even
the amount has been returned back to the informant and in view of that, the
ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also not
made out against the petitioners. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is
further not attracted.
14. Further, the documents on record further suggests that the report of 3
Men Committee is also there and the Committee has submitted the report to
the effect that there are certain discrepancies in cancellation of the agreement,
however, all the documents as has been discussed herein above are already
part of the charge-sheet and in view of that, the cases of the petitioners are
further strengthened.
15. In light of the above discussions, the question remains as to whether
the High Court while exercising its power under the revisional jurisdiction is
-8-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
competent to pass appropriate order of discharge or not. The answer is in
affirmative as in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the law or for
the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The said
power is meant to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or prosecution, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.10157 of 2019, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and another, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, State of Karnataka v.
L. Muniswamy and others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699, Pushpendra
Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1069 and Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private
Limited, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 443.
16. Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the
court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed
therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated
to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a
major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the
accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to
face trial. There are different categories of cases where the court may not
proceed with the trial and may discharge the accused or pass such other
orders as may be necessary keeping in view the facts of a given case. In a
-9-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
case where upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted
before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to
such prosecution under the provisions of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time
being in force and there is a bar and there exists no ground to proceed against
the accused, the court may discharge the accused.
17. Another well settled law is that revisional jurisdiction of the higher
court is very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of
the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The court has to keep in mind that the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the
court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed
properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to
interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories of discharge. Even framing of charge is a much-
advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. Normally, it is not
required to be interfered by the revisional court.
18. It is well known that revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. No doubt,
it may subject to jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of India.
19. Normally a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of
law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place
in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power if
required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power
by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be
-10-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 read with Section 401
Cr.P.C. can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety
of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be.
Though Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not specifically use the expression “prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice “,
the jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.P.C is a very limited one. The legality,
propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation
of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. but ultimately it also
requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there
is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is
completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
21. Coming to the facts of the present case, as has been discussed herein
above, it transpires that all the documents are part of the charge-sheet, which
clearly stipulate that if any dispute is there i.e. civil in nature and for that,
criminal proceeding has been initiated and, as such, the Court finds that the
interference by this Court is required.
22. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, these criminal revision
petitions succeed and, accordingly, the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.136/2019
arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.83/2018 and the order dated
22.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro
in G.R. Case No.375/2019 arising out of Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case
No.83/2018 are, hereby, set-aside. The petitioners herein are, hereby,
discharged from the charged labelled against them.
-11-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:21758)
23. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are allowed in above
terms and disposed of.
24. Pending petition, if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
-12-
Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024
With
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2024