[2025:JHHC:22362] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1760 of 2020 ------ Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged about 30 years, Son of Sri Janmenjai Jaiswal, Resident of Village: Lowadih, Namkum, P.O.: Namkum, P.S.: Namkum, District: Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap, S/o Late Fulchand Sahu, Resident of Opposite Central Ashoka Road – 3, Ashok Nagar, P.O.: Doranda, P.S.: Argora, District: Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manjeet Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. 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 the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.03.2019 in connection with Complaint Case No.562 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioner. [2025:JHHC:22362] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2020 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was a broker in the transaction between, the co-accused Mahaveer Mahto, who entered into an agreement with the complainant, for the sale of the piece of land. The petitioner received Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque as brokerage and the co-accused Mahaveer Mahto has taken Rs.21,00,000/- from the complainant for selling the land towards advance out of the consideration amount of the said land. 5. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner has not put his signature in the agreement entered into between the co-accused Mahaveer Mahto and the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused person even though took the advance amount but did not hand over the possession of the land nor got the sale-deed registered in the name of the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Taking advance amount for selling a land does not amount to entrustment and in the absence of entrustment, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegation of entrustment of advance amount is against the co-accused of the petitioner namely Mahaveer Mahto but there is no allegation of any entrustment specifically against the petitioner of the advance amount. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Another vs. State of West Bengal & Another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated its concern of the attempt made on the part of the parties to that case to use [2025:JHHC:22362] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2020 criminal proceeding as a weapon of harassment against the appellants, of that case. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still at best, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, para- 12 of which reads as under:- “12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied) that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted to the accused person by the complainant and merely because the seller is refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance amount paid. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of entering into the agreement and the only allegation against the [2025:JHHC:22362] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1760 of 2020 petitioner is that the petitioner took the brokerage of amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same cannot be termed as entrustment of any property because that is the money paid for the services rendered by the petitioner which, of course, may not be up to the expectation of the complainant. In the absence of the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. entrustment of property or money; in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.562 of 2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.562 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 13. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 08.10.2020 is vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj