[2025:JHHC:14760] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2024 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, aged about 49 years, son of Late Saryu Prasad Gupta @ Saryu Sah, resident of Poraiyahat, Deoghar Road, P.O. & P.S.- Poraiyahat, Dist.- Godda ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Krishna Prasad Sah, son of Late Janki Sah, resident of Gilanpara, P.O. – Dumka, P.S.- Dumka (T), Dist.- Dumka ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar , Adv. Ms. Savita Kumari , Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar , Addl. PP For the opp. party no. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Kumar , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case (PCR) no. 1125 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned CJM, Dumka has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a businessman and he took articles worth Rs. 47,00,000/- from the shop of the complainant and paid Rs. 39,00,000/- but did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- even after the notice was given by the complainant. [2025:JHHC:14760] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171, para 8 and 9 of which reads as under :- “8. Having gone through the complaint, which was registered as an FIR and the assertions made therein, it is quite clear that respondent no. 2/complainant - Sanjay Garg's grievance is regarding failure of the appellants to pay the outstanding amount, in spite of the respondent no. 2/complainant - Sanjay Garg's repeated demands. The respondent no. 2/complainant - Sanjay Garg states that the supplies were made between the period 01.12.2015 and 06.08.2017. The appellants had made the payments from time to time of Rs. 3,76,40,553/- leaving a balance of Rs. 1,92,91,358/-. 9. We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments. A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money.” and submits that the petitioner had admittedly paid major part of the amount alleged to be due and payable against him and in the absence of any deception on the part of the petitioner, by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission or inducement of the complainant to deliver the property, at the time of the contract, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out and at best, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that this a case where both civil dispute as well as the criminal case will lie, hence, it is [2025:JHHC:14760] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2024 submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2248 para-36 of which reads as under:- “36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the nonpayment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]” (emphasis supplied) that for non-payment of the consideration amount of a sale of goods, there can be civil remedy for non-payment of the consideration amount but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner over a period of time took articles worth Rs. 47,00,000/- and admittedly, paid Rs. 39,00,000/- out of the same and there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In view of the settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (supra), this court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made out against the petitioner, are considered to be true in their entirety, still no criminal case will lie and at the [2025:JHHC:14760] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2024 most, a complainant can pursue the civil remedy for recovery of money. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court, is of the considered view that, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of the process of law, hence, this is a fit case, where the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case (PCR) no. 1125 of 2022 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, order dated 22.06.2023 passed in connection with Complaint Case (PCR) no. 1125 of 2022 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 9th June, 2025 Smita /AFR