(2025:JHHC:17662) 1 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3224 of 2024 V. Raghvendra Rao, aged about 46 years, s/o Sri Subba Rao, r/o House No. 04-42-1066/4, Flat No. 212 FL Sai, Residency Paparaidu, P.O.-Kukatpally, P.S.-Kukatpally, Hyderabad (Telangana)-500072. At present c/o K.V.R.E.C.P.L., Plot No. 1801, Survey No. 66, Behind Dala Petrol Pump, P.O.-Chopan, P.S.-Chopan, Dist.-Sonbhadra, (U.P.)- 231207 .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anmol Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, s/o late Asheshwar Singh, r/o Road No. 2, Dinbandhu Nagar, Bijuliya Talab, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O.-Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. & Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Chainika, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2024 in Complaint Case No. 649 of (2025:JHHC:17662) 2 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs.57,90,700/- from the complainant and returned only Rs.4,00,000/- but did not return the remaining amount. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vikash Kumar @ Bikash Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023:JHHC:27680 that therein this Court relied upon the judgment 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. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had (2025:JHHC:17662) 3 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein it has been categorically held that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties more so because admittedly, the petitioner has returned Rs.4,00,000/-. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as has been answered to the question of the court by the complainant, the case of the complainant appears to be a vague one because he cannot say how much money out of Rs.57,90,000/- has been paid in cash and how much money has been paid through Online transactions. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the complainant also becomes doubtful because in paragraph no. 6 of the statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has admitted that he did not mention the loan of Rs.57,90,000/- in his return of the year 2020-2021. It is (2025:JHHC:17662) 4 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph no. 7 of the complaint, it has been admitted by the complainant that all the money has not been paid to the petitioner, rather some of the money has been paid to the agents of the petitioner but the name or description of any agent has not been made nor such agent has been arrayed as an accused. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that this is a clear-cut case of cheating as the petitioner by dishonest and fraudulent intention induced the complainant to part with huge amount of money but the petitioner did not pay the same. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra) that as the undisputed fact remains in this case is that, the money was taken admittedly as friendly loan and part of it has also been repaid, it cannot be said that the same will amount to cheating as there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner had any fraudulent or dishonest (2025:JHHC:17662) 5 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 intention right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in its entirety still, as there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner had any fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties; so the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 10. In view of the discussions made above, as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2024 in Complaint Case No. 649 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2024 in Complaint Case No. 649 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 13. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, Interlocutory Application No. 12693 of 2024 is disposed of being infructuous. (2025:JHHC:17662) 6 Cr.M.P. No.3224 of 2024 14. The interim order granted earlier vide order dated 10.03.2025 is vacated. 15. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd July, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-