[ 2025:JHHC:27808] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 Ashwini Kumar Mishra, aged about 46 years, son of Ramadhar Mishra, resident of C/o of Meetraj Enterprises, Gillan Para, near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand-814101 ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Ram Awtar Agarwal, resident of D-Costa Road, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand- 831006 ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev , Adv. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishta, Spl. PP For the O.P.No. 2 : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo , Adv. 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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur (annexure 3) in connection with Complaint Case no. 2079 of 2020 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Jamshedpur has found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420/ 504 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner in course of business transaction, purchased medicines from the shop of the complainant and issued a cheque. The first cheque was returned with the endorsement that the account has been closed and subsequently the second cheque was also issued which was dishonoured and ultimately despite several reminders, the [ 2025:JHHC:27808] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 petitioner did not pay the amount due to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, learned JMFC, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 504 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another passed in CrMP No. 614 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 submits that therein this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :- “6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating; where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon an another judgment of this Court in the case of Sandeep Bhargava vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another and allied case dated 11.03.2024 passed in CrMP no. 3245 of 2021 with allied cases, wherein also in the facts of that case, in the absence of any allegation that the accused person of that case, played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, this Court held that the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. [ 2025:JHHC:27808] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 6. It is next submitted that admittedly, cheque was issued in the year 2013 but the complaint case was filed in the year 2020 which is after the period of limitation for recovery of money i.e. three years; only in order to harass the petitioner, hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that since there was business relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, hence, the complainant did not immediately rush to the court and waited for seven years to save relationship with the petitioner, 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 materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated above, it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the sine qua non is that the accused must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the complainant–opp. Party no. 2 that the petitioner and the complainant were having the business relationship before this transaction and there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that, in the absence of the essential ingredient of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, even if the entire 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. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the [ 2025:JHHC:27808] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, para 24 of which reads as under :- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .” (Emphasis supplied) that the intentional insult as envisaged in Section 504 of IPC must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner ever intentionally insulted the complainant or anyone else of such a degree that should provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence and in the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is not made out. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that as even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is made out against the petitioner hence, 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 proceeding as well as the [ 2025:JHHC:27808] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 4128 of 2022 order dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case no. 2079 of 2020 be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case no. 2079 of 2020, is quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11th September, 2025 Smita /AFR