[ 2025:JHHC:26961] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 Deepak Kumar Singh, Aged About 52 years, S/O- Late Shatrudhan Prasad Singh, R/o- Tripati Apartment B-1, PO+PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Narayan Singh, son of Late Kaan Singh, presently resident of 187, Old A.G. colony, Kadru, P.S. – Argora, P.O.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 11249 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend this criminal miscellaneous petition incorporating the additional prayer of quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.11.2021 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of this criminal miscellaneous petition and unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment has already been filed. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed and this interlocutory application is disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) [ 2025:JHHC:26961] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 50 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. case no. 3323 of 2021 including the order dated 18.11.2021 whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against the petitioner; by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner took HDD machine, DG track, ten wheeler truck, water tanker and tractor of the informant for a total consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/-. The petitioner paid 10,00,000/- and issued cheques for Rs. 5,00,000/- and also promised to pay Rs. 30,00,000/- in instalments of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month but even after eleven months, only paid Rs. 6,80,000/- out of the total instalment amount. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, the police registered Gonda P.S. case no. 50 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC and basing upon the same, learned JMFC, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and took cognizance of the said offence vide order dated 18.11.2021 in connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 50 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. case no. 3323 of 2021. 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 512 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 wherein the Hon’ble apex Court in para 7 relied upon its own judgment in the [ 2025:JHHC:26961] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 case of V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 2009 3 SCC 78, which reads as under :- “7.Similar elucidation by this Court in “V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat”, explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of ‘cheating’, as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose (supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in “Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI”, “Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.”, “Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal” and “All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain”.” and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that existence of a fraudulent our dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract is sine qua non to constitute the offence of cheating. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in this case of Maya Rani vs. State of Jharkhand and Another passed in CrMP no. 3996 of 2023 dated 21.07.2025, wherein this court relied upon the judgment of 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused person. [ 2025:JHHC:26961] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph No.6 of which reads as under:- 6. Xxxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing dishonest mis-appropriation of property entrusted, hence, in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the deception must be played by the accused since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 10. Now Coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that consequent upon entrustment of some vehicle, machineries by the informant to the petitioner, the petitioner paid substantial amount of money and also kept on paying the instalments intermittently and substantial amount of instalment has also [ 2025:JHHC:26961] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 admittedly been paid by petitioner and in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner, of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. 11. So far as the offence punishable intersection 406 of IPC is concerned the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonest mis-appropriation of the entrusted property and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner is considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 50 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. case no. 3323 of 2021 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 50 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. case no. 3323 of 2021, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, all the interlocutory applications are disposed of being infructuous [ 2025:JHHC:26961] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1781 of 2022 and the interim order passed earlier vide order dated 26.07.2022, is vacated. 15. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 28th August, 2025 Smita /AFR