Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ravindra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) No.9961/2023)
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) No.10037/2023)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against common order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (High Court) in W.P. (Cr) No. 71 of 2019 and
W.P. (Cr) No. 332 of 2017. By the said order, the High Court has dismissed the
writ petitions under Article 226, seeking to quash two criminal proceedings for
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 411 and 414/34 arising out of
P.S. Case No. 11 of 2015 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and FIR
for offences under Sections 188, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 355 r/w Section 34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
17:29:08 IST
Reason:
of the Indian Penal Code arising out of P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017.
Date: 2026.07.16
1
3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9961 of 2023, is the Chief
Executive Officer of Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited whereas in Criminal Appeal
@ S.L.P. (Crl) No.10037 of 2023 appellant No. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer
and appellant No. 2 is the Managing Director of Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited.
On 21.01.2015, iron rods were being carried in six trucks illegally which were
intercepted. Thereupon first information report was registered against the appellant
in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9961 of 2023 for offences under Sections
467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 411 and Section 414/34 on the ground that it was the
property of M/s Abhijit Project Limited (now known as “M/s Path Breaking
Project Limited”) which is under liquidation and the same is the stolen property.
Subsequently, on 12.08.2017, scrap and raw material of M/s Abhijit Project
Limited, was being transported in three trucks which were intercepted. Thereupon,
a first information report was filed against appellants in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.
(Crl) No.10037 of 2023 under Sections 188, 379 and 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471,
Section 355 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9961 of 2023 filed a petition
on 22.01.2017 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was
withdrawn on 25.01.2019 with the liberty to file a writ petition under Article 226.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 9961 of 2023 thereupon filed
a writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the CJM. The
appellants in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 10037 of 2023, filed a writ
2
petition under Article 226 before the High Court seeking quashment of first
information report (P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017). The High Court by a common order
dated 28.06.2023 inter alia held that the defence taken by appellants regarding
valid sale, invoices, and tax payments involves disputed questions of facts which
cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The High Court concluded that the cases
do not fall within the parameters warranting quashing of proceedings and the
appellants were granted liberty to raise all the defences during trial. Accordingly,
the writ petitions were dismissed.
5. This Court by order dated 22.08.2023 entertained the Special Leave Petitions and
thereafter by an order dated 21.10.2024 directed that no coercive steps shall be
taken against the appellants.
6. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that
transactions in question were bona fide commercial sale of iron rods and scrap
material undertaken to discharge liabilities towards the contractors and workers
which were supported by valid invoices, tax payments and prior intimation to the
authorities. Learned senior counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to
I.A. No. 190252 of 2026, an application for permission to file additional
documents and has submitted that during the pendency of Special Leave Petitions
criminal case arising out of P.S. No. 11 of 2015, which had culminated into a
separate split-up trial registered as G.R. Case (N) No. 76 of 2015, has been
decided by the CJM, Seraikella Kharsawan by judgment dated 12.03.2026,
whereby all the accused persons facing trial therein have been acquitted of all the
3
charges. Our attention has also been invited to judgment dated 12.03.2026 passed
by the CJM. It is, therefore, contended that impugned common order dated
28.06.2023 be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, learned standing counsel for the State of
Jharkhand, submitted that FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and the
assets of the company which were subject to restriction in liquidation proceedings
were being sold and removed without proper authorization. It is contended that no
case for quashing the criminal proceeding and the FIR is made out. However,
learned standing counsel for the State did not dispute that judgment dated
12.03.2026 has been passed by the CJM arising out of same P.S. Case No. 11 of
2015 by which the accused therein have been acquitted of the charges against
them.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made. In view of the subsequent event,
namely judgment dated 12.03.2026 passed by CJM arising out of same P.S. Case
No. 11 of 2015 wherein CJM after full-dress trial has acquitted the accused therein,
we set aside the common order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the High Court in W.P.
(Cr) No. 332 of 2017 and W.P. (Cr) No. 71 of 2019 and restore the writ petitions.
We request the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh, by taking into
account the judgment dated 12.03.2026 passed by CJM in G.R. No. 76 of 2015
arising out of P.S. Case No. 11 of 2015 within a period of three months. The
interim order granted by this Court dated 21.10.2024 shall continue till decision of
the writ petitions. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
4
the merits of the case.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the Appeals are disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 13, 2026
5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9961/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-06-2023
in WPCR No. 71/2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi]
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 206177/2024 – EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 160822/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 204363/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 160814/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 10037/2023 (II-A)
IA No. 162040/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 204797/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 162038/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 173682/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 13-07-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navniti Pd Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nitin Pasari, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Shivam, AOR
Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR
Mr. Bijoy Kumar Pradhan, Adv.
Ms. Pavithra V, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Chechi, Adv.
6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NIDHI WASON)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7
