Jharkhand High Court
Mamta Upadhyay Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
1 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
2 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
3 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
4 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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 assumes5 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)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
6 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
7 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
8 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
9 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
10 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
11 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
12 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
13 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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:-
14 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
(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.
15 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
16 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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.
17 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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.
18 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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:-
19 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
(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.
20 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
21 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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.
22 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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.
23 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
24 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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.
25 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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. 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.
26 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:21179)
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
27 Cr.M.P. No.3011 of 2023
