IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 18 of 2023

1. Shyam Bihari, aged about 54 years, son of Mahavir Prasad resident of village- Tilwariya, P.O. & P.S.-

Haweli Kharagpur, District- Munger, Bihar

2. Bhola Choudhary aged about 53 years, son of Arjun Choudhary, resident of village- Basmatta, P.O. & P.S.-

Deoghar, District-Deoghar, 3. Abhay Shankar Jha aged about 52 years, son of Sitaram Jha, resident of village- Saket Vihar, Near Oxford School, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-

Deoghar, 4. Radhey Shyam Yadav aged about 52 years, son of Late Sukhdeo Yadav, resident of village- Pokhriya, P.O. &

PS.- Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger, Bihar, 5. Indradeo Yadav aged about 51 years, son of Bangali Yadav, resident of village- Dhawa, P.O- Bhitiya, P.S.-

Fullidumar, District- Banka, Bihar, 6. Raj Kumar Yadav aged about 51 years, son of Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, resident of village- Harpur, P.O. & P.S. Tarapur, District-Munger, Bihar, 7. Lal Babu Choudhary aged about 52 years, son of Bimal Choudhary, resident of village-Palajori, P.O. & P.S.-

Palajori, District- Deoghar

8. Mohan Choudhary aged about 55 years, son of Baleshwar Choudhary, resident of village- New Colony, Madhupur P.O. & P.S.-Madhupur, District- Deoghar, 9. Arun Kumar aged about 52 years, son of Janak Ray, resident of village- Gopikandar, PO. & P.S.-

Gopikandar, District- Dumka, 10. Dilip Kumar aged about 51 years, son of Kasim Saw, resident of village- Dilawarpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna, Bihar

11. Kamlesh Kant Yadav aged about 52 years, son of Ram Parikshan Yadav, resident of village- Kundahit, P.O. &

P.S.- Barmasiya, District-Jamtara ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .….. Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mrs. M. M. Pal, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shipra Shalini, Adv.

Mr. Abhisehk Sriwastava, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP 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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. case no. 94 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1112 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar based on the charge sheet submitted by the police in the case, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC inter alia against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the co-accused of the case, some of whom are the officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and its predecessor-in- interest, Department of Telecommunication, committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and also used forged documents as genuine and being public servant and agent, committed criminal breach of trust, in respect of the property entrusted to them, by falsely claiming to be the Temporary Status Mazdoors (TMS) of the said BSNL and its said predecessor-in-interest being the Department of Telecommunication and when the same was detected and their so called service was kept in abeyance, the petitioners challenged the said order by which their services were kept in abeyance and which keeping in abeyance order was passed by the competent officer; before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna. One of such cases relates to O.A. No. 51 / 132 / 2017, wherein it was contended by the BSNL and the Department of Telecommunication that the documents produced by the petitioners and some other co- accused persons, were forged documents. It was observed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that only if the BSNL authorities initiate action against their senior guilty officers who have helped to perpetrate the fraud, then such claim of BSNL would be credible. The matter was enquired into by the concerned officers of the BSNL and the DGM, Vi