(2025:JHHC:22369) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2997 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2997 of 2019 ------ Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh aged about 58 years, Son of Late Etwari Gorain, Resident of village- Block Chowk, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Pushpam Lata Prasad W/O Sanjay Kumar Resident of MM/10 Phase 2 Above the Shop, Prem Chandra Nagar Colony, P.O. Pandeypur, P.S. Pandeypur, District- Varanasi 221002 (Uttar Pradesh) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1596 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the said case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner knowing that the property is a joint property and knowing pretty well that a partition suit was going on between the co- accused vendor of the petitioner and his co-sharers, still purchased the joint property. (2025:JHHC:22369) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2997 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that even though the entire allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 418 nor the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.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 made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that all the three offences i.e., the offence punishable under Section 418, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 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 so far as the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the said offence are as under:- (1) The accused cheated a person; (2) At the time of offence accused was bound by law or legal contract to protect the interests of the person whom he cheated; (3) The obligation related to the transaction involving the cheating; (2025:JHHC:22369) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2997 of 2019 (4) The accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause wrongful loss to the person and whose interest he was bound to protect. 7. Thus, it is crystal clear that the sine qua non to constitute the offence of cheating, the essential ingredients are:- (i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by other act or omission; (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of deception of the complainant or any person either by himself or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person nor is there any allegation against petitioner of inducing any person deceived to deliver any property, either by himself or in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons. In the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence of cheating which is also the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian (2025:JHHC:22369) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2997 of 2019 Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said two offence is forgery and to constitute the offence of forgery, making of a false document is a sine qua non. The essential ingredient to constitute the offence of forgery are:- (i) The accused prepared a false document or electronic record; (ii) He did it with false meaning of written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit; (iii) The document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently; (iv) He did it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to another. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person of making any false document. There is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly or fraudulently making, signing, putting seal or executing any document or part of a document nor is there any allegation against the petitioner either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person dishonestly and fraudulently making or transmitting any electronic record or part of any electronic record nor is there any allegation against the petitioner either individually or otherwise affixing any electronic signature or any electronic record nor is there (2025:JHHC:22369) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2997 of 2019 any allegation of either individually or otherwise dishonestly and fraudulently making any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of electronic signature. 11. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused person, this Court has no hesitation in holding that neither the offence punishable under Section 467 nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner; even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, the continuation of this criminal procedure against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1596 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the said case, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 20.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1596 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the said case, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 14. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 16.01.2020, is vacated. 15. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh