(2025:JHHC:23490) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2140 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2140 of 2019 ------ 1. Bharat Singh aged about 65 years, son of Baliram Singh 2. Meera Singh aged about 62 years, wife of Bharat Singh Both residence of M.I.G., House No.-B-60, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi; 3. Jayant Kumar Sinha, aged about 76 years, son of Late Bikramaditya Prasad Sinha 4. Pradeep Kumar Sinha aged about 44 years, son of Jayant Kumar Sinha; 5. Praveen Kumar Sinha, aged about 50 years, son of Jayant Kumar Sinha; 6. Kamla Sinha @ Kamal Sinha, aged about 70 years, wife of Jayant Kumar Sinha. All resident of B/67, Bhagyalaxmi Society, Near Samata, P.O. & P.S.- Baroda, State Gujrat … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dayanand Singh, son of Late Permanand Singh resident of M.I.G., House No.-B-60, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate Mr. Avnish Kr. Pathak, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. (2025:JHHC:23490) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2140 of 2019 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.1743 of 2016 of the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi as also the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been found by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners. 3. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that this Cr.M.P. has been dismissed against the petitioner No.1 namely Bharat Singh vide order dated 30.08.2024. 4. So far as the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 is that the petitioner No.3 negotiated for the sale of the house of the co-accused persons, who are the petitioners herein to the complainant but did not get the same registered. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the delivery of the possession of the house has been given to the complainant but the registration of the document has not been done. It is next submitted that as none of the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is available, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. (2025:JHHC:23490) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2140 of 2019 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 and submit that there are sufficient materials available in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code are:- (1) Accused voluntarily or dishonestly induced the complainant; (2) He did so for delivery of some property either to the accused or some other person; (3) He intentionally induced the complainant to do a thing which he would not do or omit to do, a thing which he would have done if not induced; (4) Such act caused was likely to cause some damage or harm to his body, mind, reputation or property. 7. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that from mere failure of a person to keep promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning cannot be presumed. A mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228. (2025:JHHC:23490) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2140 of 2019 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have handed over the possession of the house in question to the complainant and the complainant has been in possession of the same. The allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 is that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are not getting the sale-deed registered in favour of the complainant but there is no allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 of having played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 9. It is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, playing deception by the accused since the very inception of the transaction between the parties is a sine qua non as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- 6. “Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) 10. As already indicated above that since there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 of having played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against (2025:JHHC:23490) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2140 of 2019 the petitioner Nos.2 to 6. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Protest-cum- Complaint Case No.1743 of 2016 of the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi as also the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Protest-cum- Complaint Case No.1743 of 2016 of the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi as also the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted to the petitioners vide order dated 08.01.2020, is vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh