( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3009 of 2019 ------ Navin Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Church Road, P.S.-Daily Market, Ranchi, P.O.- Lalpur, P.S.-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Pawan Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Late Ramu Ram Verma, resident of HB Road, P.O.-Lalpur, P.S.-Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate : Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaustav Roy, 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 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.3096 of 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. ( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner entered into an agreement according to which the petitioner being an owner of a girl’s hostel permitted the complainant and his partner Devendra Yadav to run the said hostel. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant gave two cheques of one lakh each to the petitioner as security; but the petitioner encashed the said cheques. It is the further case of the complainant that after entering into the said agreement, there was dispute between the complainant and Devendra Yadav. Devendra Yadav paid Rs.1,11,400/- by way of cheque towards the profit of the business to the Complainant but the same was dishonored. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshyam & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.3020 of 2024 dated 22.07.2024 that in para-11 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred the ingredients which must exist to constitute the offences punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- 11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the following ingredients must exist: i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust. submits that at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case is being given to a purely civil dispute between ( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 the parties, hence, it is submitted that 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. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the person to whom the security amount, which was paid, along with agreement, as a deposit can be said to have dishonestly misappropriated an entrustment of property, which has dishonestly been converted to the own use of the accused person or disposed of the same in violation of any direction of law or contract. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Rafique and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2024:JHHC:3151 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under :- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further, it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, ( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 Respondent 2, had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.(Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC, without there being a clear case of entrustment for which the provision of punishment has been enshrined under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. 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 the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant admits that he has paid Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner but the same was paid as security to him. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that though the security deposit was made in terms of the deed of lease, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4, Page-28-33 of the brief, but there is no covenant between the parties to get back the security deposit, but still since the opposite party no.2/complainant has issued a demand notice, the petitioner ought to have paid the same and having not paid the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, ( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 admittedly, the money of Rs.2 Lakhs was paid by the complainant to the petitioner as security deposit. Admittedly, there is no clause in the deed of lease entered into by the petitioner and inter alia that the complainant can get back the security deposit. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that considering the entire allegations made against the petitioner to be true in their entirety, there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated any entrusted property and in the absence of the same in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.3096 of 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.3096 of 2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, ( 2025:JHHC:16881 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3009 of 2019 Ranchi including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 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 vide order dated 09.01.2020, stands vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of June, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj