2025:JHHC:21968 1 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3470 of 2019 ------ Pradeep Patel @ Pradip Patel aged about 55 years, son of Ishwar Bhai Patel, Propprietor of M/s Precious International, resident of plot No.160, near fire station Industrial Estate, GIDC, P.S. & P.O. Industrial Area Ankleshwar, District – Bharuch PIN 393002 (Gujarat) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/s. Promise, through its proprietor, Smt. Sunita Todi, W/o Sri Dilip Kumar Todi, Resident of 106, 107, Hariom Tower, Circular Road, P.S. Lalpur, P.O. – Lalpur, District – Ranchi ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Utaplkant, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhay Shankar Dayal, Advocate Ms. Prinyaka Dayal, Advocate P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in complaint case No.4998 of 2018 by which the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of the M/s Precious International. The accused company / opposite party No.2 is engaged in the business of processing, manufacturing, marketing, trading and export of FMCG products and other various products under the brand name of ‘Tiger Brand’. On 05.02.2018, the sales 2025:JHHC:21968 2 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 Personnels of M/s Precious International came to the complainant’s firm where complainant’s husband was also present and after showing their products, convinced them to do business with them. The accused along with the aforesaid persons assured the complainant that an agreement will be executed between both the parties in this behalf. It was agreed upon between the parties that articles / goods worth three times of the payment made by the complainant, will be sent to the complainant. On such assurance, the complainant sent Rs.5,50,000/- into the account of petitioner on 08.02.2018 but instead of sending goods worth three times of the aforesaid amount as agreed upon between the parties, only the articles / goods worth less than Rs.5,00,000/- was sent to the complainant’s firm. When the complainant along with her husband approached the petitioner to execute the agreement, as agreed upon previously on multiple times, the accused petitioner refused to do so on one ground or others. Though, it was also agreed upon between the parties that all sort of marketing support will be provided by the petitioner’s company, the petitioner’s company also did not provide the aforesaid support, as agreed between the parties. Subsequently, the Complainant again transferred Rs.5,61,000/- on 12.03.2018, but the petitioner sent articles / goods not in accordance with the agreed terms, but as per his sweet will. It is further stated that an outstanding due of Rs.5,60,000/- is still pending with the accused company, but the accused is not showing his interest to fulfil his assurance, which was given earlier for starting the business. 2025:JHHC:21968 3 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 4. To the question of the Court, the complainant stated in her statement recorded under solemn affirmation, that her husband was looking after the shop and looking after the account of the said shop also, hence, the complainant does not know the transaction details. She further stated that she could not contact the staff of the petitioner. On the basis the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 5. Learned counsel of the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability and submits that in this case also, a civil dispute is given a cloak of criminal case. 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner ever made any dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person to part with property. 7. It is next submitted that admittedly before sending money by the complainant to the account of the petitioner, there was no direct contact between the petitioner and complainant. The alleged staff, who entered into the deal with the complainant has not been made co-accused in the 2025:JHHC:21968 4 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 complaint, so there was no occasion for the petitioner to deceive and thereby induced the complainant so deceived to part with any money. 8. It is next submitted that admittedly the payments were made in respect of the business transaction. There is no allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the beginning of transaction between the parties. There is no any allegation of entrustment to the petitioner as the payment made for goods cannot be termed as entrustment. Further, there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any property by the petitioner. Hence it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 9. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of cheating and committing criminal breach of trust. It is next submitted that there is direct allegation that huge amount has been entrusted to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not supply the goods worth the same. Hence it is submitted that both the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are made out against the petitioner on the basis of the allegation made against him. Hence, 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, it is pertinent 2025:JHHC:21968 5 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only those cases of breach of contract would amount to the offence of cheating, where there was any deception played at the very inception and if any intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to the offence of cheating, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph- 6 of the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336. 11. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, Para 18 of which reads 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 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 reiterated the settled principal of law that in order to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that the property has been retained by the accused person, but it must also be shown that the accused persons 2025:JHHC:21968 6 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 12. Now coming to the facts of this case, so far as, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, admittedly there was no direct contact between the petitioner and the complainant before, the complainant allegedly transferring the amount to the account of the petitioner; in the absence of any direct contact between the two and in absence of any allegations of criminal conspiracy, there is no way, the petitioner could have deceived the complainant or dishonestly induced the complainant to part with any money or property. Further there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. 14. So far, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed dishonest misappropriation of any property. Admittedly, there is no agreement as yet between the petitioner and the complainant. There is no allegation that the petitioner, before the complainant transferring money to his account, made any commitment personally. 2025:JHHC:21968 7 Cr. M.P. No.3470 of 2019 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor 406 of IPC are made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with the complaint case No.4998 of 2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 09.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.4998 of 2018 is quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner. 18. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 19. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 14.01.2020 is vacated. 20. Registry is directed to intimate the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of August, 2025 AFR/ R. Kumar