Ritwik Chatterjee @ Ritweek Chatterjee vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 06.04.2023 in Criminal Revision No.03 of 2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur corresponding to G.R. Case No.957 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the revision application filed against the order dated 03.12.2022 passed in Bistupur P.S. Case No.72 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.957 of 2011 passed by learned CJM, Jamshedpur wherein the learned CJM, Jamshedpur rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is one of the accused person of Bistupur P.S. Case No.72 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner forged original salary slip and cheque off letters and on the basis of such forged documents, using the forged documents as genuine, obtained loan from the State Bank of India, Bistupur Branch. The bank became confirmed about the forgery from the correspondence made by the informant to the employer of the petitioner being the Chief Controller, Finance, Tata Steel Ltd. After investigation of the case, police found allegations to be true but in the Charge Sheet/Final Form at the table in Serial No.10 which relates to the description of the documents/objects seized during the investigation of the case, the same has been left blank; indicating thereby as if no document has been seized during the investigation of the case. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since the correspondence vide letter no.AGM/11-12/2009 dated 21.06.2011 and its reply vide letter no.FSA/PRA/F-751/667/11 dated 30.07.2011 are the vital documents; on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has held that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, having not supplied the same to the petitioner, the continuation of this Criminal Proceeding in violation of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that there is no reference in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur that this ground of non-supply of the said two correspondences, to the petitioner was ever agitated before the Revisional Court nor the same is mentioned anywhere in this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is next submitted that since the grievance of the petitioner is non-supply of certain documents upon which the prosecution intends to rely, the petitioner can very much approach the trial court for obtaining copies of the same, but that is not a ground to quash the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.03 of 2023. It is next submitted that as there is no illegality in the said order nor any illegality in the same is agitated even by the petitioner, in this Court, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that since there is no illegality in the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.03 of 2023, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

So far as the contention of the petitioner that the documents relied upon by the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was not supplied to the petitioner is concerned; it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned trial court by filing an appropriate application to supply the copy of the same to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.