IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.682 of 2021

------

Dilip Kumar Singh, age about 52 years, son of Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, resident of Vill- Darihara, P.O. and P.S.- Darihara,

Bihar- 841101

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pawan Kumar, age about 48 years, son of Dinesh Prasad

Singh, presently residing at V.E.W.T. Campus, Village Fartia, P.O. and P.S.- Garhwa, District:- Garhwa, permanent address S.D.O. Road, Hajipur, P.O. & P.S.- Hajipur, District:- Vaishali

(Bihar)

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Amrita Sinha, Advocate

Ms. Shweta Suman, Advocate

Mr. Pragunu Kashyap, Advocate

Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For the OP No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, 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 the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No. 321 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 385, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner; in which the

investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Hajipur in the district of Vaishali, gave a phone call to the informant and intimated that the informant is a guarantor in the loan account of Rubi Singh and threatened him to send to jail if the informant tries to be cunning and also told the informant that the informant must not underestimate the petitioner as the petitioner gives loan to the criminals and he can send shooters from Hajipur to shoot at Fartia. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Garhwa Town P.S.

Case No. 321 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. It is next submitted that no offence of cheating, forgery or any offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Admittedly as mentioned in the FIR itself, one D. Sarkar who was the Branch Manager and Sunil Kumar who was the credit/loan Manager of the Central Bank of India, Hajipur Branch have forged the signature of the informant and the petitioner was not posted or present at Hajipur when the alleged forged signature of the informant as a guarantor in the account was made.

5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025 INSC 1339, para-21 of which reads as under:-

“21. Before parting with this matter, we deem it fit to issue the following directions:

(i) In view of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali27, it can be seen that the ‘leave of the court’ to file a supplementary chargesheet, is a part of Section 173(8) CrPC. That being the position, in our considered view, the Court is not rendered functus officio having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court must perform.

(ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first information report and the culminating chargesheet, it is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the explanation so furnished.

The direction above does not come based on this case alone. Th