(2025:JHHC:29227) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3365 of 2022 ------ Rajesh Sahu @ Rajesh Sahu, aged about 59 years, son of Jagdish Sahu, resident of Upper Bazar, Mahavir Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., District- Ranchi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gayatri Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, resident of Vashundhara Apartment, 1008, 10th floor, near Argora Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Arogra, District- Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though opposite party No.2 is appearing in this case through her lawyer but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.5469 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi for (2025:JHHC:29227) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 457, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the husband of the complainant took the house of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.1,01,000/-. The lease and rent agreement were executed by the husband of the complainant and petitioner. The husband of the complainant gave an advance amount of Rs.2,02,000/- and invested more than Rs.5.5 crores for the purpose of setting up assets like office furniture, printing items, laptops, silent generator, EPBX Machine setup, CCTV Setup, Centralized Air Condition setup, decorative items worth Rs.15,00,000/-. In March, 2020, the office of the husband of the complainant was closed due to COVID-19 Pandemic. From March, 2020 to August, 2020, the husband of the complainant suffered losses in his business. In August, 2020, the complainant’s husband restarted his office with full strength. Because of him being busy in business tours, the husband of the complainant could not contact the petitioner for renewal of the lease-cum-rent agreement. The husband of the complainant locked the office. In the meanwhile, the husband of the complainant was put behind the bars in ED Case and was sent to jail custody. On the date of filing of the complaint, the husband of the complainant was in jail custody. In April, 2022, when the complainant went to the office of her husband, she found that the accused persons have forcefully captured the entire office furniture and fixtures. The petitioner refused to meet the complainant. The bouncers of the petitioner drove away the complainant from the said premises. The petitioner let out the said premises to someone else and the petitioner, after breaking the main gate and lock, captured the entire office of the complainant and sold out the entire office furniture. There is (2025:JHHC:29227) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 allegation that the petitioner threatened the complainant that if she will again demand the office furniture, fixtures and other materials, she will face dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 457, 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-12 has expressed the word of ‘caution’ for the High Courts while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by observing that such power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court and the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Kumar & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.127 of 2023 dated 15th April, 2024 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraph- 25 of which read as under:- “25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which (2025:JHHC:29227) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that for establishing the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be alleged that the threat consisted of some injury to the person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone and the threatening was with intention to cause alarm to the victim; or to cause the victim to do any act which he was not legally bound to do and in the absence of any such allegation, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph-18 of which read as under:- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest (2025:JHHC:29227) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons but it must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to some ulterior motive. The husband of the complainant has accepted in several communications that he is not going to pay rent because of some personal problems. The eleven (11) cheques which he gave towards monthly rent, have all been dishonoured. The husband of the complainant was not even able to pay the electricity bills as well as the maintenance charges and by suppressing the said facts in the complaint, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has instituted this case for the purpose of wrecking vengeance by giving at best the civil dispute, a cloak of criminal case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are sufficient to constitute each of the offences for (2025:JHHC:29227) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as follows:- (i) The accused did lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night (ii) It was done in order to commit an offence punishable with the imprisonment; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nasiruddin & Others vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1971 SC 1254. 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of either doing any lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night. There is no allegation against the petitioner that even he has broken the lock. The only claim of the complainant that she found the lock broken. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner; more so over, when admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the place of occurrence- house and admittedly the husband of the complainant could not renew the lease-cum- rent agreement, after its expiry, obviously thereby ceasing to be a tenant of the petitioner. (2025:JHHC:29227) 7 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that there must be entrustment and there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction or obtaining legal possession; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 13. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any entrustment of any property by the complainant or her husband to the petitioner. In the absence of the same, certainly the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the same has already been discussed hereinabove in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra). 15. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation that the petitioner threatened the complainant to cause alarm to the complainant nor is there any allegation of any threatening which consisted of some injury to the complainant or her reputation or her property. In the absence of any allegation regarding this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. (2025:JHHC:29227) 8 Cr. M.P. No.3365 of 2022 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has not hesitation in holding that the 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 proceedings pending against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.5469 of 2022, be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.5469 of 2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 18. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of September, 2025 AFR/ Animesh